Hidden Hurts, Healing from Within: Restorative Justice for ...repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1139/1/AidooDavina... · Criminal Justice System Introduction Discovery & Beginnings History

HiddenHurts,HealingfromWithin:RestorativeJusticeforVictims&Convicted

OffendersinBermuda

LondonMetropolitanUniversity

Policing,Security&CommunitySafety

ProfessionalDoctorateThesis

DavinaAidoo

Studentno:11051376

Submissiondate:2016

DoctoralThesis–DavinaAidooHiddenHurts,HealingfromWithin:RestorativeJusticeforVictimsandConvictedOffendersinBermuda.

i

HiddenHurts,HealingfromWithin:RestorativeJusticeforVictimsandConvictedOffendersinBermuda

Abstract

Thisthesissoughttoexplorehowrestorativejustice(RJ)couldbeimplementedintotheBermuda

DepartmentofCorrectionsusingactionresearch.TheaimwastoexplorehowRJcanworkfor

victimsandincarceratedoffendersinBermudainregardstothepotentialforreductionofharm,

increasingempathyandasanadditiontotheexistingCJS.Trainingwasprovidedandpartnerships

establishedwiththeBermudaPoliceServiceandPrisonFellowshipBermudaforthespecificpurpose

oftheinitiative.Phase-oneinvolvedtheintroductionoftwoprerequisiteprogrammes(Victim

EmpathyandtheSycamoreTree)thatoffenderswereinvitedtovoluntarilyparticipatein.

Respectively,oneprogrammedeliveredbyCorrectionsstaffandconsistingofonlyprisonersandthe

otherdeliveredbyPrisonFellowshipfacilitatorsandinvolving16surrogatevictim-participants.

Amixed-methodapproachwasusedtoexamineimpactandprocess.Theseincludedquestionnaires

preandpostthephase-oneprogrammesandtheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometrictoassessattitudinal

change,participatoryandnon-participatoryobservationsandafocusgroup.Bothprogrammes

increasedtheoffenders’empathywhiletheSycamoreTreeprogrammeinvolvingparticipantsfrom

thecommunity,helpedcreatefurtherpositiveattitudinalchangeonthemainscalesmeasuredby

theCRIME-PICSII.93%oftheSycamoreTreevictim-participantswere‘verysatisfied’overalland

‘woulddefinitely’recommendtheprogrammetoothers.Qualitativefindingsindicatedvictim

healing,withsomereferringtoasenseofclosureandforgivenessforthemselvesandtheoffender.

Thesecond-phaseintroducedRJconferencing,twoconferenceswereheldandtheexperienceof

participantswasagainverypositive.Theoffendersconsideredtrainedconferencefacilitatorsfrom

thePoliceandCorrectionsasbeingimpartial.Overallbenefitsforbothparties(offendersand

victims)indicatedapromisingstarttotheinitiative.

Anumberofpreviousfindingsfromempiricalresearchwerefoundinthecurrentstudy.Victims

valuedhavingavoiceandrehabilitation;andoffendersvaluedthe‘victim’sforgivenessand

reintegration’.ThesocialinterconnectednessofBermudacreatesaneedforRJasthestigmatization


ii

ofcriminalityoftenextendsbeyondtheoffendertoincludetheirfamily.Thepilotindicatedtheneed

insomecasesforreparatorypreparationworkwithoffendersandtheirfamiliesbeforetheoffender

feelscomfortable,orabletocalluponfamilymembersasconferencesupporters.Furtherthe

importanceofcommunitylayinthefactthatthelikelihoodofvictimscomingintocontactwiththe

personwhooffendedagainstthem,oncereleasedisvirtuallyinevitable.

ThesuccessoftheactionresearchpilotledtotheDepartmentofCorrectionsadoptingtheinitiative

andcontinuingwithitandproducedninetrainedfacilitators.ThecontentoftheSycamoreTree

Projectwassuperiorasaphase-onepre-requisiteprogrammetoRJconferencing;however,an

adaptiontotheprogrammewouldbeneededtoreducethestrongreligiouscontent.Victimsand

offendersbenefittedfromtheinitiative.


iii

Acknowledgements

Toalltheparticipantswhoconsentedtobepartoftheresearchandwhoprovidedhonest

informationaboutyourpersonalexperiences–sincerely,thankyou.Thisactionresearchwouldnot

havebeenpossiblewithoutyou.Iamespeciallygratefultothosewhoseinputwentbeyondtheir

participationintheprogrammeandwhoserecognitionofrestorativejusticewouldcontinuetobe

sharedwiththecommunity,notleastMrRossFurbertandMsLauraSmith.

AspecialthankyoutotheCommissionerofCorrectionsLt.Col.EdwardLambforgrantingpermission

fortheresearchtobeundertakenandforadvocatingrestorativejustice.Additionally,tothePolice

CommissionerMrMichaelDeSilvaandthepoliceofficerswhokeenlycontributedinpartnershipto

theinitiativeandsawvalueintheactionforthecommunity;aspecialthankstoDcJuliaSwan.

MythankstothePrisonFellowshipBermudaSycamoreTreefacilitatorswhoworkedhardand

enthusiasticallytoprovidetheprogramme,andwhoofferedmecontinuedsupportand

encouragement.ThankyouSheridanScottonandTruellLandy.

ThesupportandassistanceprovidedtomebyCordellRileywasinvaluableandgreatlyappreciated,

aswasthesupportshownandfeltfromPastorSantucci.

IowegratitudetomysupervisorDrJennyNewtonwhoremainedpatientinexplainingthingstome

andinguidingmywritingofthisthesis.Yourkindnessandencouragementagainstmypessimismat

timeswasmuchneeded.

IamindebtedtoYvetteBrownwhowasnotonlyinstrumentalinthedeliveryoftheaction,but

whoseencouragementandsupportmadethetimeswhenIwantedtothrowinthetoweldifficult.

Iamappreciativeofmylearnedco-studentandfriendKeironMcConnellwhowasaninspirationand

greatsourceoffortitude.Iamsohappywetravelledthisjourneytogethertoitsend.

Fortheeverconstantloveandsupportofmyfriendsandfamily,thankyou.ToConradReidIhope

youknowhowgratefulIamforyourloveandsupport,likethatofabigbrother;andletmenot

forgetpatience.

LastbutfarfromleastSamanthaPatel,Iappreciateandrespectyouandyourknowledge,the

inspirationyouhavebeenformethroughoutmyresearch,beforeandsincehasbeenagift.Thank

youforyourinnovation,encouragement,support,challenge,nurturance,insightfulnessandlove,my

soulsister.


iv

HiddenHurts,HealingfromWithin:RestorativeJusticeforVictimsandConvictedOffendersinBermuda

Contents

Abstract

i

Acknowledgements iiiContents ivIndexofTables,Figures&Graphs viiiGlossaryofTerms XChapter1–Introduction Background&Rationale

ChapterOutlinesTheoretical&PhilosophicalFoundationsReparation,Restoration&RestitutionRetaliation,Revenge&Retribution

AimsandObjectivesDefiningRestorativeJusticeLeadingRJTheoristsandPractitioners:&theRestorative-RetributiveDichotomyModels&PhasesofRJApplicationTheRJCommunity

12357

10

1315

16

Chapter2-EmpiricalResearch&Practice:WhatWorks?What’sBeenFound!

IntroductionWhat’stheEvidenceRegardingRJEngagement?DoesRJMeetitsAims?WhatisKnownAboutHowRJWorksinPrisons?WhatFurtherEvidenceistherethatRJImprovesVictimEmpathy?Models&Guidance

SatisfactionRatings:Victim&OffenderExperiencesandOutcomesFindingResolution:Victim&OffenderExperiencesandOutcomesSycamoreTreeProject

2020

2629

32

35

4042

43


v

Chapter3–BermudainContext:Crime&theCriminalJusticeSystem

IntroductionDiscovery&BeginningsHistory&ColonisationCrimeinBermuda&the21stCenturyCriminalJusticeSystemCasemates&theBermudaDepartmentofCorrectionsRehabilitation&RestorativeJustice

TheLegacyoftheCriminalJusticeSystemRacialDifferences&theCriminalJusticeSystemInmatePopulationCharityWork:Macro-communityReparation

47484852

57

63

656669

69

Chapter4-TheInterventionModel

Introduction:RestorativeOrientationVictim-EmpathyProgrammeSycamoreTreeProjectRestorativeJusticeConferencingSchemeDevelopmentandBestPracticeGuidance

ProgrammeDifferencesTheScript,Agreement&Gathering

72

74767879

80

82

Chapter5-Methodology IntroductionTheoreticalFrameworkResearchMethodsQuestionnairesInterviews

PhilosophicalBasis&ResearchFrameworkMixedMethodsRationale&ConceptualFrameworkEthicsI–Consent

ChosenMethodsQuestions&DesignAdministrationandConsentPilotingPsychometrics:Measuring:EmpathyinOffenders

InterviewDesign&QuestionsAdvantages&DisadvantagesofFace-toFaceInterviewingMethod

85

86

89

91

9192

939495

9898

99


vi

ObservationFocusGroupsTheResearcher&ResearchinPrisonsEthicsII–ActionandResearchResearchParticipants:Selection&DemographicsDataAnalysis

DataCollection–AudioRecording&Transcription

ValidationStrategiesInformationSharingwithStakeholdersSamplingTechniques&IssuesDescriptionofResearchParticipants:Offender-ParticipantsVictim-ParticipantsVictim&OffenderViewsoftheCJS&RJMotivation&RetentionEmpathyProgrammeEvaluationVictim&OffenderViewsoftheConferencingExperience

100

101102102

106107109

109

110

111112112

112113113113

Chapter6–Findings AnalysisbyDomainVictim&OffenderViewsoftheCJS&RJMotivation&RetentionEmpathy&theCRIMEPICSIIProgrammeEvaluation

GeneralQuestionsontheCJSQuestionsPertainingtoPersonalCases&ExperienceswiththeCJSGeneralMotivationfor,andKnowledgeofRJEffectsofRJonPerceptionsoftheCJSDomainOneSummaryMotivationRetentionMotivationforRJConferencingDomainTwoSummaryVictimEmpathyScalePhase-OneProgrammeComparisonTheG,A&ECRIME-PICSIIScalesDomainThreeSummaryPreparationConsultation

115115116

122

124

130

131132136138

140140141142

143

144145147


vii

Victim&OffenderViewsofRJ&theConferencingExperience

FacilitatorSkills&PracticeExperiencesOutcome&EvaluationsDomainFourSummaryPre-conferencePost-conferenceDomainFiveSummary

148149151156157157158161

Chapter7-Discussion&Conclusions

ViewsofRJ&theCJSinBermudaExperimentalModel:Phase-OneProgrammesProgressionontoRestorativeJusticeConferencingRecommendations:IssuesforRestorativeJusticePractice&PolicyConclusion

EffectsforSycamoreTreeVictim-participantsCommunityHealingParticipantRecruitmentWithdrawals&RefusalsPracticePolicy

162164

165169

172174175178180

181182184

Statues 186References 186Appendices

1 AuthorisationLetter-CommissionerofCorrectionsBermuda 199

2

3

ResearchBackgroundPaper

RestorativeJusticeConferencingLeaflets

201

204

4 NewspaperArticlesabouttheAction 209

5 FarmFacilityvsWestgateSTPCRIME-PICSIIScores 220

6 PublicSurveyFindings 221


viii

IndexofTables,FiguresandGraphs

Chapter Page Table

5 111 Table1-Retentiondataofoffender-participantsforeachoftheprogrammes.

5 111 Table2-Agerange&median,ofalltheparticipantsacrosstheinterventions.

6 119 Table3–Participants’viewsofthelevelofrespectpoliceshowtovictims.

6 119 Table4–Participants’viewsofthelevelofrespectCourtsshowtovictims.

6 120 Table5–OffenderviewsoftheCJS’slevelofrespectforthe‘accused’.

6 139 Table6–WillingnessofstakeholderstoparticipateinRJconferencing.

6 148 Table7–Ratingsonfacilitatorconsultationwithparticipants.

6 156 Table8–Overallsatisfactionratesforeachprogramme/intervention.

Chapter Page Figure

4 73 Figure1.1 –VenndiagramofMcCold’stheoryofRestorativeOrientation.

4 74 Figure1.2 -VenndiagramoftheInterventionProgrammes&theirLevelofRestorativeOrientation.

7 180 Figure2 -VenndiagramofToews‘LevelsofRestorativePractice’.

Chapter Page Chart&Graphs

6 116 Graph1- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–SentenceslaiddownbytheCourtsarefair.

6 117 Graph2- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–TheCriminalJusticeSystemmeetstheneedsofvictimsofcrime

6 118 Graph3- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–Thereisadequatesupportforvictimsofcrime.

6 120 Graph4- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–TheCJSrespectstherightsofthoseaccusedofcommittingacrimeandtreatsthemfairly.

6 121 Graph5- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–TheCriminalJusticeSystemasawholeiseffectiveinreducingcrime.


ix

6 121 Graph6- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–TheDoCiseffectiveathelpingtorehabilitateoffendersconvictedofacrime.

6 122 Graph7- VictimandOffenderratingstothestatement–TheCJSiseffectiveinbringingpeoplewhohavecommittedcrimestojustice.

6 123 PieChart1

Showsthepercentageofparticipantswhohadknowledgeofrestorativejustice(pre-intervention)

6 125 Graph8- Participants’responsesto–whethertheywouldhavebeenwillingtoparticipateinRJ‘whentheoffenderswerearrestedandcharged’.

6 125 Graph9- Participants’responsesto–whethertheywouldhavebeenwillingtoparticipateinRJ‘whenthecaseisinCourtbutbeforeconviction’.

6 126 Graph10- Participants’responsesto–whethertheywouldhavebeenwillingtoparticipateinRJ‘post-conviction,pre-sentence’.

6 133 Graph11- Participants’responsespreandpost-programmeon‘howtheyfeltaboutbeingaskedtoparticipate’.

6 134 Graph12- Participants’responsespost-programmeto‘howtheyfeltaboutbeingcontactedtoparticipate’.

6 137 Graph13- Participants’ratingspost-programmeon‘howsafetheyfeltduringtheprogrammes’.

6 139 Graph14- Offenderwillingnesstomeetwiththeirdirectvictims.

6 145 Graph15- Participants’ratingson‘howwelltheywerepreparedbythefacilitators’.

6 146 Graph16- Participants’ratingsoninformationreceivedpre-programme.

6 147 Graph17- Participants’ratingsoninformationreceivedpost-programme.

6 150 Graph18- Participants’ratingsonlevelofemotionality.

6 152 PieChart2

Participants’ratingswiththeconclusionoftheSycamoreTreeprogramme.

6 152 PieChart3

Participants’ratingswiththeconclusionoftheVictimEmpathyprogramme.

6 153 Graph19- SycamoreTreeparticipants’ratingsontheimportanceoftherefreshmenttime.


x

GlossaryofTerms

ATI AlternativestoIncarceration

BPS

BermudaPoliceService

CJS

CriminalJusticeSystem

DoC

FGC

DepartmentofCorrectionsBermudaDepartmentofCorrectionsFamilyGroupConferencing

IIRP

InternationalInstituteforRestorativePractices

MOJ

MinistryofJustice(UK)

NGO Non-GovernmentalOrganisations

NOMS

PACE

NationalOffenderManagementService(UK)Police&CriminalEvidenceAct(UK)

RJ

RJC

RestorativeJusticeRestorativejusticeConferencing

STP

SycamoreTreeProjectorSycamoreTreeprogramme

UN UnitedNations

VEP

VictimEmpathyProgramme

VIS VictimImpactStatement

VOMVictimOffenderMediation


1

v CHAPTER1-INTRODUCTION

“Thehistoryofchangeintheareaoflawandjusticeisnotahopefulone.Effortsatchangehaveoftenbeenco-optedanddivertedfromtheiroriginalvisions,sometimesinperverseand

harmfulways.”(Zehr,2005,p222)

Background&Rationale

Inrecentdecadestherestorativejustice(RJ)movementhasgainedimmenseinternational

momentum,withtheUKMinistryofJusticecommissioningresearchandchangeoflegislationin

anumberofcountries.

KeypolicymakersandNGOshavebeendiscussingthepotentialbenefitsofRJforBermuda,

whichhasseenanincreaseinviolentcrimesinrecentyears(Hortonetal,2011).WithaCriminal

JusticeSystem(CJS)basedonthatoftheUK,victimsneedsandrightshaveoftenbeenignored

ormarginalisedwithinjudicialproceedings.VictimImpactStatementswerenotintroducedinto

thelawuntiltheCriminalCodeAmendmentAct2001.1

Equallythestigmatizationofthosewhooffendoperateswithinatightnetworkofsocial

connections.Offendersoftenexpressneglectintheirconsiderationofthoseharmedbytheir

actionsorviewthemselvesasvictimsduetotheirownlifeexperiences,orfromwhatthey

perceiveasunfairtreatmentbytheCJS(Wachteletal,2010).

Currently,incarcerated-offendersoftheBermudaDepartmentofCorrections(DoC)mayhave

beenorderedtopayfinesandrestitution.Reparationandrestitutionascoveredbythelaw,and

inlinewithfines,arelimitedtopaymentofmoney;therearenootherformsofreparation.2

1TheBermudaAmendmentCode2001alsoincludedprovisionsforfines,restitutionandreparation.2TakenfromtheCriminalCodeAmendmentAct2001p18-19:“Restitution70H (1)Whereanoffender–

(a) deprivesapersonofpropertyofwhichthatpersonwasinpossession;and(b) isinpossessionoftheproperty,

thecourtmayordertheoffendertorestorethepropertytothepersonwhowasinpossessionofitimmediatelybeforethecommissionoftheoffence. (2)Thecourtmayenforceanorderforrestitutionby– (a)imposingitasaconditioninaprobationorder;or

(b)bysuspendingthepassingofsentencetoallowthepropertytoberestoredbeforesentencing.


2

Aswithmanyothercountries,theeffectivenessoftheCJSinBermuda,todeteroffendingand

reducetheharmcausedtovictimsandcommunitiesarequestioned.In2011theInternational

CentreforPrisonStudiesreported“TheUnitedStateshasthehighestprisonpopulationratein

theworld743per100,000ofthenationalpopulation,followedbyRwanda(c.595),Russia(568),

Georgia(547),U.S.VirginIs.(539),Seychelles(507),StKitts&Nevis(495),BritishVirginIs.(468),

Belize(439),Dominica(431),Bermuda(428),Grenada(423)andCuracao(422).However,more

thanhalfthecountriesandterritories(54%)haveratesbelow150per100,000.”(Walmsley,

2011).TherewouldappeartohavebeenquiteadecreaseinBermuda’spositioninmorerecent

yearsbasedonexactnumbersimprisoned,opposedtoadirectcomparisonwiththenational

population(InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies,2014).3

ThereisnonationalcrimesurveyinBermuda,thereforetheopinionsandperceptionsofthe

generalpublicontheCJSarelargelyunknown.

Thisthesisfocusesontheperceptionsandexperienceofvictimsandincarcerated-offendersthat

participateinRJinterventionsinBermuda;thereforetheaimandobjectiveswere–

Aim

ToexplorehowRJcanworkforvictimsandincarceratedoffendersinBermudain

regardstothepotentialforreductionofharm,increasingempathyandasanadditionto

theexistingCJS.

Reparation70I (1)Whereanoffenderisconvictedordischarged,thecourtimposingsentenceonordischargingtheoffendermay,inthecaseofdamagetoorthelossordestructionofpropertyofanypersonaasaresultofthecommissionofanoffenceorthearrestorattemptedarrestoftheoffender,makeareparationorderrequiringtheoffendertopaythatpersonanamountnotexceedingthereplacementvalueofthepropertyatthedatetheorderisimposedlessthevalueofanypartofthepropertythatisreturnedtothatpersonatthedateitisreturned. (2)Wherebodilyharmiscausedtoanypersonasaresultofthecommissionofanoffenceorthearrestorattemptedarrestoftheoffender,thecourtmaymakeareparationorderrequiringtheoffender,topaytothatpersonoutofpocketexpensesdirectlyincurredasaresultofthebodilyharm.”

3Bermudarankedatposition192intheworldforprisonpopulation;withtheUSArankedin1stposition;UKat17th;CaymanIslands199th&Anguilla213.


3

Objectives

1. ToprovideasynopsisofsometheoryonRJ.

2. ToexploretheexistingresearchevidencethatRJiseffectiveinmeetingitsaims.

3. TodrawonresearchandpolicyguidancetoclarifyhowRJshouldbeimplemented

withinacorrectionssetting.

4. TodescribethecontextofcrimeandcultureinBermuda.

5. Toexplorevictims’andoffenders’opinionsgenerally,oftheexistingCJS,andspecifically

inthemanagementoftheircases.

6. ToexploretheexperienceandeffectsofanexperimentalprogrammeofRJforvictims

andconvictedoffendersinBermuda.

7. Toevaluateandcontrasttheprogrammesusedinordertodrawimplicationsforfuture

practiceandpolicyinBermuda,forinclusionofrestorativejustice.

ChapterOutlines

Theremainderofchapterone(RestorativeJustice:Theoretical&PhilosophicalFoundations)

introducesthedefinitionofRJadoptedbytheresearchandbrieflydiscussescritiquesofthe

definitionandothersoffered.ThechaptergivesabriefoverviewoftheRJcorevalues,some

theoriesandassumptions,alongwithsomepreliminaryresearchfindings.AdescriptionofRJ

modelsisprovidedandinformationonthestagesofjudicialprocesswhenRJcanbeused.This

overviewalsobeginstoillustratesomeofthequestionsthatwouldbeusedinthestudyto

researchtheopinionsandexperiencesofvictimsandoffenders,addressingtheobjective-To

provideasynopsisofsometheorythatguidestheresearch.

Chaptertwo–EmpiricalResearch&Practice:WhatWorks?What’sBeenFound!Thischapter

focusesonkeyup-to-dateempiricalresearchon‘whatworks’inRJ.Thisreferstothe

effectivenessofRJtomeetitsprimaryaimofmakingjusticemorehealing.Byaddressingthe

needsofvictimsandrepairingtheharmcausedtothem,byholdingoffendersaccountablefor

theharmcausedandprovidingopportunityforreparationthatalsoinvolvesandbenefitsthe


4

community.4Thechapterwillincludefindingsfromanumberofcountries,withsomefocuson

guidanceofhowRJshouldworkwithconvictedoffenders.Insodoing,itsetsouttoachievethe

followingobjectives:

-ToexploretheexistingresearchevidencethatRJiseffectiveinmeetingitsaims.

-TodrawonresearchandpolicyguidancetoclarifyhowRJshouldbeimplementedwithina

correctionssetting.

ChapterthreeprovidesinformationonBermudaintermsofitshistory,demographics,crime

andtheCJS.Thiswillincludesomediscussionofthesocialfactorslinkedtocrime,claimsof

historicalinjustices,inequalityandreligion.ItwillofferaninsideviewoftheDoCandits

population;addressingtheobjective-TodescribethecontextofcrimeandcultureinBermuda.

Chapterfourdescribesthethreeinterventionsthatareusedaspartoftheexperimental

researchprogramme–aVictimEmpathyProgramme(VEP),theSycamoreTreeProject(STP)

andRJConferencing(RJC).Acomparisonofthetwoinitialprogrammes(VEPandSTP)isoffered,

whichdescribestheaimsandapproachofeach.ItoutlinesthedifferentlevelsofRJorientation,

whichmayaccountforanyvariationsinthefindings.Thisputsintoperspectivethe

appropriatenessoftheinterventionsandprecedesthemainmethodologychapter.

Thefifthchaptersetsouttheresearchmethodology.Thisdetailstheuseofamixed-method

designwithinActionResearch,howparticipantswereselected,pilotingofmeasures,description

ofquestionnairesandplanneddata-analysis.Itincludesasectiononthereflectivepositionof

theresearcherandstrategiestomanageinternalresearch,aswellasethicsandapproval.Whilst

providingtheabove,thischapterfurtheraimstomeettheobjectiveofdrawingonguidanceto

informimplementationwithinacorrectionssetting.Aheadoftheresearchfindings,thischapter

alsoprovidesadescriptionoftheresearchparticipants.

Chaptersixpresentsthefindingsoftheresearch,includingquantitativedataanalysisand

detailingofqualitativefindingssimultaneously,whereitisusefultopairthetwotypesofdata.

Thiswilladdressinthemostpartobjectivesfiveandsix:

4Contrarytothisisthegreateremphasisoftenpaidtoreducingrecidivism;somethingthathasbecomeunavoidableasRJisincreasinglybeingincorporatedintotheCJS.Albeitnotedthat,thismaybeanoutcomeobjectiveforvictimsoftheoffender.


5

- ToexploretheexperienceandeffectsofanexperimentalprogrammeofRJforvictims

andoffendersinBermuda

- Toexplorevictims’andoffenders’opinionsgenerally,oftheexistingCJS,andspecifically


Chaptersevenoffersacriticalanalysisanddiscussionofthefindingspresentedinchaptersix.

Includingtherelevanceofthefindingstotheoverallaimoftheresearchanditsimplicationfor

RJinBermuda,answeringtheobjective:

- Toevaluateandcontrasttheapproachesusedinordertodrawimplicationsforfuture

practiceandpolicyinBermuda,forinclusionofRJ.

Thefinalpartofthechapterprovidestheconclusion.Theconclusiontotheresearchidentifies

thecontributiontointernationaldebatesonRJandtotheimplementationofRJinBermuda.It

makesrecommendationsfortheinclusionofRJinlaw,asanoriginalpieceofresearchspecificto

Bermuda.Asapioneeringpieceofresearchinthisareaandpartoftheworld,itwillalsomake

recommendationsforfutureevidencebasedresearch.

Asdetailedabovetheremainderofthischapter-chapteroneaddressesthefollowingobjective:

Ø ToprovideasynopsisofsometheoryonRJ

RestorativeJustice(RJ):Theoretical&PhilosophicalFoundations

DefiningRestorativeJustice

ApopulardefinitionofRJwasofferedbyMarshallin1996“Restorativejusticeisaprocess

wherebyallthepartieswithastakeinaparticularoffencecometogethertoresolvecollectively

howtodealwiththeaftermathoftheoffenceanditsimplicationsforthefuture.”(citedin

Braithwaite,2002,p.11;&Daly,2002,p.57).Interestingly,thedefinitionseemedtoreceivea

criticaldissection(Braithwaite,2002;Daly,2002).Braithwaite(2002)referringtofundamental

principlesofRJ,likethereparationofharmpointedoutthatMarshall’sdefinitiondidnotstate

whatexactlywastoberestoredandfailedtodefineothercorevaluessuchas“…moral

learning,communityparticipation,communitycaring,respectfuldialogue,forgiveness,

responsibility,apology,andmakingamends.”(Nicholl,1998,citedinBraithwaite,2002,p.11).


6

Nicholl’s(1998)callforforgivenesstobepartofadefinition,isahighlycontroversialissue;one

thatwillreceiveattentionfurtheroninthisthesis.Thedefinitionwasfurthercriticizedfor

focusingheavilyonprocess,suchasthe‘comingtogether’advocatingonlyface-to-face

meetings(Daly,2002),andforfailingtoincludethepotentialneedforcoercion(Walgrave,

2000,inDaly,2002).Doolin(2007)arguesthatthedefinitioncouldpotentiallyresultin

outcomesthatdegradeandhumiliate.Presumably,becauseitdoesnotstatethatthedialogue

shouldberespectful.Overprescribingtheprocessand‘parties’presentations(oncean

assessmentofreadinesshasbeenconducted),couldborderoncontrollingandadverse.This

criticismmostofall,seemstostretchthefunctionofadefinitiontosuchanextentthatitis

unclearhowlengthyaworkabledefinitionDoolinseeks.Shealsofailstoappreciatethe

differencebetweenguidelines/standardsofpracticeandadefinition.

Notablyby1998Marshallhadofferedaslightlyamendeddefinition“RestorativeJusticeisa

processwherebypartieswithastakeinaspecificoffencecollectivelyresolvehowtodealwith

theaftermathoftheoffenceanditsimplicationsforthefuture”(p.28).Albeitthisdidnotdiffer

greatlyfromthepreviouslyaccusedprocess-drivendefinition,itdideliminatethefocusofthe

affectedpartieshavingto‘cometogether’.Marshall’s1998definitionwasadoptedbythis

research.

Moreimportantly,whetherdefinedorjustimplemented,isthecorevaluesofRJ.Seeminglythe

mostcentralvaluebeingthatcrimecausesharmtopeople,asopposedtothecurrentCJS’s

focusontheviolationoflaws.Itisthisharmtopeople,thataretributiveCJSisaccusedof

ignoring.Anothercorevalueistheinvolvementofaffectedparties,andthatbothvictimand

offenderareinvolvedinadialogicalprocess(whichneednotbeface-to-face)toidentifyhowto

repairtheharmcaused.Thesuccessfuloutcomeisconsideredtobehowmuchharmisrepaired

opposedtohowmuchpunishmentcanbeextended.

“Thephilosophybehindrestorativejusticewastomanagetheharmdoneandtorestorethe

offenderandthevictimtotheiroriginalstateasfaraspossible…restorativejustice[presents]

alternativecriminaljusticeoptionstoestablishedmodesoftrialandpunishmentandthatit

soughttoincludethecommunityandsocietyasawholeintherestorativeprocess.”(UN,2002,

p2).


7

Skepticismofotherswishingtodominateanalreadyrevampedpractice(Erbe,2004;would

likelyagreewiththisperspective)couldbeexcusedasMarshall’searlierdefinitionappearstobe

reflectedinthatoftheUN’srecentdefinition–“Arestorativejusticeprocessisanyprocessin

whichthevictimandtheoffenderand,whereappropriate,anyotherindividualsorcommunity

membersaffectedbyacrimeparticipatetogetheractivelyintheresolutionofmattersarising

fromthecrime,generallywiththehelpofafacilitator.”(2006,p6).

EmphasisinadefinitionofRJunderstandablytranslatesasadefinitionofprocess.Thisappears

tobeinreactiontothedeclareddeficienciesofthetraditionalcriminaljusticeprocessthat

focusesonprocedure.

LeadingRJTheoristsandPractitioners:andtheRestorative–RetributiveDichotomy

WhileBraithwaite(1989),Marshall(1989),Zehr(1985)andUmbreit(1997;inUmbreit&

Armour,2011)areconsideredthemostprominentpioneeringtheoristsofRJinits

contemporaryconception,theseleadersarecognizantofRJprinciplesstemmingfrom

indigenousculturessuchasthoseoftheMaoripeopleofNewZealandandtheFirstNation

peopleofCanada(Umbreit,2000;Braithwaite,1998citedinStrangetal,2013).Practices

howeverhavebeenadoptedandevolved.

In1990,Zehr’sbookentitledChangingLens:ANewFocusforCrimeandJusticewasfirst

published;nowinitsthirdedition(2005),Zehroutlinedawayinwhichcrimeandtheimpactof

itshouldbeviewed.Statingthatjusticefollowinganactofcrimeshouldask“Whatcanbedone

tomakethingsright?”Zehrarguesthatjusticeshouldbeginto“…repairinjuriesandpromote

healing.Actsofrestoration–notfurtherharm–willcounterbalancetheharmofcrime.We

cannotguaranteefullrecovery,ofcourse,buttruejusticewouldaimtoprovideacontextin

whichtheprocesscanbegin.”(Zehr,2005,p186).Zehr(2005)articulatesthatwhetherornota

relationshipexistedbetweenthevictimandoffenderpriortotheoffence,thecrimecreatesa

relationshipbetweenthem.Hefurthersuggeststhatinjuriescausedbycrimecreatesfour

dimensionsofharmandthereforehealing,thatjusticeshouldseektoaddress–healingfor

victims(restitution);healingoftherelationshipbetweenvictimandoffender(reconciliation);

healingoftheoffenderandthecommunity.

WhatIsJustice?Whileadvocatessuggestthattheaimofjusticeshouldbereparation,theytend

nottoprescribewhatformthatshouldtake,opposedtohowitcanbeachieved.Itwas


8

thereforeanissueforexplorationinthisstudy.Participantswouldbeaskedabouttheir

interpretationofjustice.

IntheliteraturethereisadichotomyproposedbyprotagonistsofRJ,betweenRJanda

retributiveCJS.Thishasbeendescribedbyanumberofauthors(e.g.Daly,2000,2002;Graef,

2001;Johnstone,2002;Zehr,2002).Anoverviewispresentedhere-

Retributivejusticeisarguedasbeingdefinedbyprocess,theintent,pastbehaviouranddeficits

oftheoffender.WhereRJisdefinedbyrelationshipsandfocusesontheharmfulconsequences

oftheoffender’sbehaviourandtheircapacitytomakereparation.Retributivejusticeisaccused

ofbeingbasedonadversarialrelationships,dependentonproxyprofessionals.WhereasRJ

emphasisesrepairthroughdialogueandnegotiationdirectlyinvolvingthoseaffected.

Itisarguedthatashistoricalreparativejusticechangedintotheretributivesystemofmost

countriestoday,asaconsequenceofstatecontrolandpunishment,socialcohesionandsocial

controlbegantodiminish.Consequentially,communitiesbecamemoreindividualisticfostering

moreegoisticinterests.Furtherstill,itisarguedthatapunitivelegalsystembreedsviolence,

creatingfurtherdisfranchisementofindividualsandfamilies.Thislossofthefamilyasa

protectiveandsocialcontrol,issaidtobreedmorecriminalityandostracisingofoffendersby

meansofstigmatization;aresemblanceofhowcourtsrigidlyoperatetoseparatevictimsfrom

offenders(Shearer,2010).

In1989,JohnBraithwaite’sbookCrime,ShameandReintegrationpresentedtheideaof

reintegrativeshaminginwhichhequestioned‘whymostpeopledotherightthingmostofthe

time’opposedtowhypeoplecommitoffences.Hearguedthatstigmatizingthosewhooffendor

commitwrongdoing,furthermaginalisestheminsocietyandlabelsthemasdeviant;focusing

heavilyontheindividual.Whereasreintegrativeshamingshamestheactofthe

offence/wrongdoing(opposedtotheindividual),holdingthepersonaccountablewithout

ostracizingthemfromthecommunity.Theimportanceofthisresponsetocrimehighlightsa

corevalueofRJthatcrimebeviewedashavingbothindividualandsocialdimensionsof

responsibilitywithafocusonproblemsolving;notanindividualactwithindividualresponsibility

andguilt(Graef,2001;Zehr,2002).Thelatterresponseconsideredreflectiveofaretributive

criminaljusticesystem,wherecrimeisfurtherviewedasaviolationagainstthestate;opposed

toanactagainstthevictimandcommunity.


9

Victimsarenotconsideredasbeingvindicated(inthedichoticpresentationbysomeRJ

advocates),butratherexcludedfromtheoffenceandpositionofhavingbeenwronged.Not

onlyarevictimsdeniedtheopportunitytotelltheirstory,orasZehr(1985)onceemphasized,

giventheopportunitytoexperienceforgivenessinordertomoveon.Theycanbefurther

victimizedbytheproceedings,ifevenpresent.Equallytheoffenderisoftenleftinapositionof

defensivenessandself-preservation.“Ourlegalsystemtendstodefinejusticenotbythe

outcomebutbytheprocessitselfandbytheintentionbehindit.”(Zehr,1985,p71).Zehr

critiquesthestatelegalsystem,arguingthatwhilsttheintentionmaybetoachieveequalityof

treatmentforbothvictimsandoffenders,thisislessimportantthantheprocess.When

examiningtheeffectivenessofjustice-“Weseejusticeasasystemofrightrules.Weretherules

followed?Ifso,justicehasbeendone.”(Zehr,1985,p71).Hestatesthatthereareanumberof

casesinwhichquestionsofinnocenceandguiltremainunanswered,butappealsaredeniedon

thebasisthatjusticewasservedappropriatelyaccordingtoprocedure.Hefurtheraccusesthe

criminaljusticesystemasfindingguiltandthenimposingpain.Inanattempttosafeguardthe

severityofretribution,hearguesthatpunishmentproportionatetocrime(theEnlightenment

concept)doesnotalleviatetheinflictionofpain.Asapreventivemeasureagainstabuse,Zehr

arguesthatthefundamentalsofthesystemstillremainunquestioned–isretribution

necessary?Thesuggestionofsafeguardingretributionisdiscussedfurtherinthischapter.

InrelationtothedichotomyproposedbetweenretributiveandRJ,itisarguedthatoffenders

areviewedinpurelylegalterms,devoidofmoral,social,economicalorpoliticaldimensions;

diametricallyopposedtoRJthatviewstheoffenderasawholeperson,impactedbyallthe

dimensionslistedabove.Inaretributivesystem,theoffender’s‘debt’isowedtothestate(in

abstract).WithRJtheoffenders’‘debt’andliabilitytothevictimisrecognized.Someofthese

claimsmaybe‘proven’inlightofplea-bargainingandtherewardfornotwastingstatetimeor

expensebyenteringaguiltyplea.

Withretributivejusticethereisnoencouragementofrepentanceorforgiveness;punishment

prevailsasameansofdeterrence(recidivismratesspeaktothis!),andthestigmacanbe

irreversible.WithRJitisarguedthattherearepossibilitiesforrepentanceandforgiveness,asa

meansofrestoringbothpartiesinreconciliationandthestigmacanbereversiblethrough

restorativeaction.


10

Closeinspectionofthedichoticdescriptionscanilluminatethesignificanceofsemantics–‘an

act’versus‘violation’.IthasbeenarguedthattherearebenefitstobothRJandpunishment,in

theamalgamationofrestorativeandretributivepractices(Barr,2013).“Theevidencesuggests

thatmuchcanbegainedfromadoptinganeclecticapproach.”(Barr,2013,p409).TheUN(2002)

states“Onefunctionofrestorativejusticeistoprovideamechanismthatcancompensatefor

thedefectsinexistingsystems.”(p4).

SuchaneclecticapproachisneededasRJisnotsuitableforalloffendersandtimingcouldbeall

importantwhenseekingthewillingness,muchlesspreparednessofvictimstoparticipate.The

dichotomyoftenpresentedistoostarkandoppositionaltobeworthyoffurtherattention.

However,socialconstructionismtheoryformedtheepistemologyoftheresearchwithitsfocus

ontheimportanceoflanguageandknowledgeconstructedthroughsocialinteractionswith

others.Itthereforehighlightsthesignificanceofdialogue,recognitionofvaluesandhowchange

canbecreated.

“Restorativejusticeismoreofanidea,philosophy,setofvalues,orsensibilitythanasingle

concreteanduniformsetofpracticesorprocesses.”(Menkel-Meadow,2007,p19).This

perspectivemaybetrueinpartandinotherwaysredundant.Thechapternowmovesonto

reviewmodelsandprocessesofRJ.

Models&PhasesofRJApplication

RJcanbeusedatvariousstagesinthecriminaljusticeprocess,forexample,atarrest/court

diversion;post-conviction/pre-sentence;post-sentenceandpre-release(Shearer,2010;

Shaplandetal.,2004).Tickell&Akester(2004)suggestthefollowingas‘principalmodels’.

• “Victimempathyprogrammes,

• Victim-offendermediation,

• Restorativeconferencingandcautioning,

• Familygroupconferencing,and

• Sentencingcircles(alsoknownaspeacemakingorcommunitycircles).”(p21).


11

Despitethedifferentmethodsandvariousstagesofintervention,therearestillattemptsto

homogenizeRJ,notleastevidentinthedebatearounddefinition.Zehr(2002)considersthe

latterthreemodelsasthemostdominate.5

Abriefdescriptionofthese‘principalmodels’willfollow,wherenecessarywithsomediscussion.

Victimempathy(orawareness)programmes(withorwithout)victimsencourageoffendersto

reflectontheirbehaviorandtheimpactofitonothers,suchastheirownfamily,thevictim’s

familyandthecommunity;aswellasthedirectvictim.Theseprogrammescanberunin

partnershipwithotherorganisations,suchasvictimsupport.Thistypeofprogrammewasused

asthephaseonepreparatoryprogrammesinthecurrentresearch,onewithvictims(STP)and

onewithout(VEP).

Victim-offendermediation(VOM)bringstogethereitherdirectlyorindirectlythevictimand

offenderinrespectfuldialoguetoresolveissuesrelatedtotheoffence,whichisfacilitatedbya

mediator.Themediatorundertakesworkwitheachpartyseparatelybeforetheyare(orarenot)

broughtinmeetingtogether.Victimsandoffendersmeetalonewithamediator;inother

instancessupportersmaybepresent(e.g.familymembers).Indirectmediationispreferable

whentheoffenderlacksremorseorempathy,orinstanceswheneitherpartydoesnotwanta

face-to-facemeetingbutstillwishtocommunicatewiththeother.6

Thisiswheremediationmoststrikinglydiffersfromformsofconferencing(andcircles).Alarger

numberofindividualsusuallyconstitutesconferencing,andspecificallyinvolvespeoplefromthe

communityasthosealsoaffectedbytheoffence&/orassupporters.However,Shaplandetal

(2006)alsofoundintheirevaluationofthreeRJschemesthat“Mediationtendedtobemore

backwards-looking(focusingontheoffence),whilstconferencinghadamajorfuture-orientated

element.”(p4).MediatorsalsoplayamoreactiverolethanfacilitatorsofRJC.

RJCcanbefacilitatedwiththeaidofascriptthatfollowsaspecificorderandspecificquestions.

Facilitatorscanbeprofessionals,suchaspolice,probationandyouth-workers,orvolunteersto5Umbreit(2000)referstoVOM,FGC,peacemaking/sentencingcirclesandreparativecommunityboardsasexamplesofRJC,andintheordertheyarelistedasbeing“theorderofthereyearsofexperienceandfrequencyofuse…”.(p2)6MediationisnotatermorprocessusedbyalladvocatesofRJ(includingthisauthor),asitinvokestheconnotationofconflictresolutionandassumesequalresponsibilityofthepartiesinvolved(e.g.Zehr,2002).WithRJtheoffenderhastoadmitsomedegreeofresponsibility,whichisnotsharedwiththevictim.


12

trainedspecialists.Conferences(likecircles)can,alsobefacilitatedbypeers,suchasstudentsor

prisoners.Withconferencingallpartieshaveanopportunitytotelltheirstoryandsharetheir

effectsoftheoffence.Theconcludingaimistoreachamutualagreementofhowreparationcan

bemade.Aftertheformalpartoftheprocess,informaltimeisallowedforrefreshments.

Inrestorativecautioning,theprocessissimilartothatofconferencinghowever,victimsarenot

present.

Familygroupconferencing(FGC)haslargelybeenreservedforyoungpeople,operatinginmuch

thesamewayasconferences,toreachagreementsthatcanincludereparation,andwiththe

aimofdivertingyoungpeopleawayfromtheCJSandtominimizeriskofreoffending.

Professionals(e.g.youth-offendingworkers)arepresentandmakecontributions.Plansare

constructedindifferentways(dependingonjurisdiction),forexample,betweentheoffender

andtheirfamilymemberstotheexclusionofothers.However,courts,youthoffenderpanelsor

similaragenciesgenerallyratifyplans.

Sentencingcirclesoccurafteraconvictionandformpartofthecourtprocess,asacommunity-

basedintervention.Theremitbeingtodevelopasentencingplan,basedonallinvolvedhaving

theopportunitytocontribute,thisinvolvesjudgesandsupportstaffaswellasthoseusually

foundinconferences(victim,offender,theirfamilyandsupporters).Tickell&Akester(2004)

notethatunlikemanyotherRJprocessespasthistoryistakenintoaccountandconvictionsare

recorded.

Bazemore&Umbreit(2005)undertookastudytocompareandcontrastfourmodelsof

restorativejusticeforusewithjuvenileoffending–victim-offendermediation;community

reparativeboards(youthpanels,neighbourhoodboardsorcommunitydiversion);familygroup

conferencingandsentencingcircles.Theirconclusionwasthateachmodelhasitsownstrengths

andweaknesses.7Theyfoundthatcaseneedswerebettermanagedbyparticularmodels,for

example,reparationboardsweremostappropriateforlow-risknon-violentoffenderswithfew

previousincidents,versussentencingcirclesformoreserious,chroniccasesthatmayalso

involvedysfunctionalrelationships.Theysuggestedthatresourcesandcostscouldalsoleadto

preferencesinonejurisdictionoveranother,forexamplesentencingcircleswerefoundtobe7Bazemore&Umbreit(2005)pointoutthatthemodelssharemuchincommonasonewasoftendevelopedoutofanotherformofRJorinfluencedinstructureorcontentbyanother,e.g.familygroupconferencinginfluencedreparativeboardsandvictim-offendermediation.


13

themostholisticofthefourbutalsothemostlabourintensive.Othershavealsopromoteda

‘needs-led,multi-methodapproach’(Roberts,2004).

Whatevertheapproach,itisarguedthatemphasisshouldbeplacedonthecorevaluesofRJ;

otherwiseacase-by-caseapproachcouldfail“…toaddresstheunderlyingaetiologicalfactors

associatedwithcrime,suchaspoverty,racismandculturalandsocialvalues.”(UN,2002,p5).

Thelatterquotehighlightsthesocialimpactofcrime.RJalsoacknowledgescommunitiesas

havingbeenharmedbycrimeandnotjustthedirectvictims.Hencetheinclusionofcommunity

indefinitionsandZehr’s(2002)postulationofthemostdominateRJmethodsbeingtheones

thatheavilyinvolve‘others’.

TheRestorativeJusticeCommunity

WithaprincipleofRJbeingreparationtothecommunity,asharmisnotlimitedtothedirect

victims,manyhavesoughttoclarifythemeaningandparametersofcommunityinmodernday

society.TheclaimbeingofmostWesternsocieties,thatthepre-modernsenseofcommunity

hasbeenlost.

ManyarguethatcommunityinRJtermsisnotmeasuredbygeography,butshouldbedefined

(Dignan,2005;McCold,2004).Braithwaite(1989)forexample,refersto‘communitiesof

interest’asashiftinlocusofinterdependencyawayfromneighbourhoods.In‘communitiesof

interest’suchasleisureactivities,occupationandworkplace,therecanbeagreaterpotential

forproximalsocialcontrolandsupport.Hecitesanexamplefromresearchinwhicha

probation/youth-offendingofficerrequestedrepresentativesfromayoungoffender’ssports

clubtoattendcourt,tostatewhattheycouldcontributetorehabilitatingandmonitoringthe

youthinthefuture.InthesamevainBraithwaite(1999)conceptualizes‘communitiesofcare’as

comprisingofagroupofpeoplewhowouldbecommittedtocaring,encouragingand

supportinganindividual.Themanifestationoftheseconceptsofcommunitycouldbeviewedas

translatingintoorganisationssuchas‘circlesofsupport’.

However,thereisanacknowledgementthatcrimeimpactsthemoremacro-community,

geographicalcommunityonthebasisofareducedsenseofsafetyduetocumulativecrime.Fear


14

ofcertainneighbourhoods,duetocrimecreatesareductioninpublicguardianshipofthose

areas,whichinturnleadstofurthercrimeandgeneralneighbourhooddecay(McCold,2004).

Sothereinlaysadistinctionbetweenageographicalcommunityandamorerelational

community.McCold(2004)categorizesthoseaffectedbycrimeasfallingintotwogroups;the

micro-communitymadeupofvictims,offendersandtheirsupportersasprimarystakeholders

andthemacro-communityassecondarystakeholders.

Fromameetingin1996ofprominentRJadvocatestestingthedegreeofconsensusonkey

conceptsofRJ,onlythreeconceptscouldbeagreed:1.“restorativejusticeviewscrimeasa

harmtopeopleandrelationships;2.Offendershaveanobligationtomakethingsrighttothose

affected;and3.Victimsandoffendersaredirectstakeholders,butothersareaffectedaswell.”

(McCold,2004,p.160).McCold(2004)suggeststhatRJbegantodiverge,creatingconflicting

goalsasthetwoperceptionsofcommunitywerefollowed.AccordingtoMcCold(2004)those

followingthemicro-communityperspectivefocusonreparationofharmtovictimsandtheir

families,withareductioninreoffendingoccurringasanextrabenefit,notagoal.8Whilethe

macro-communityfocusisreparationoftheaggregatedeffectofcrime,withthegoalbeinga

reductionofthethreatposedtosocietybytheoffender.Withthemacroperspective,citizens

andrepresentativesofthemacro-communitymanageRJanditdoesnotrequireanencounter

betweentheoffenderandvictim(communityreparativeboards).Furtherdistinctionismadeof

thecommunityfocuslevel,inthatMcCold(2004)suggeststhemacro-communityparadigm

operatesbymakinggeneralsanctionsincaseswherethecriminaljusticesystemguidesthe

interventionand“Fromthisperspective,suchoutcomesprovidesymbolicreparationtosociety

andspecificassistancetoneedyresidents.Thus,offendersarecollectivelyhelpingtorebuild

neighbourhoodsharmedbycrime.”(p159).Conversely,micro-communityleveloutcomesare

determinedcase-by-casebasedonthevictim’sneedsandtendtobedivertedawayfromthe

criminaljusticesystemaslessseriouscases.

TheRJmacro-communitylevelverycloselyresemblesrehabilitation;preciselyindicativeofthis

McColdlistsyouth-sentencingpanelsandyouthoffendingteamsasexamples,afterstatingthat

thoseaffectedbytheoffenceneednotbeinvolved.Thisfurtherseemstobareextreme

resemblanceofthetraditionalcriminaljusticeprocess.

8Thecurrentresearchtakestheperspectiveofthemicro-community.


15

AtthispointitistotallycomprehensiblewhyDignan(2000)madethestatementthatRJcould

become“...anAliceWonderlandconcept,inwhichitismadetomeanwhateverparticular

groupsorindividualsintendittomean,irrespectiveofitsdefiningcharacteristics.”(p7).

Harmtoprimarystakeholdersisviewedasdirect,theirneedsspecificandtorepairharmtheir

roleshouldbeactive.Theharmtosecondarystakeholdersisvicarious,withaggregatedneeds

andtoreduce/repairtheharmtheirroleshouldbesupportive(McCold,2004).Agreaterissue

betweenthestakeholdersorlevelsofcommunityisthatnotonlyisitthecasethat

reparation/healingforvictimsismostsignificantwhentheyareinvolved(Marshall,1998;

McCold,2004;Zehr,2002)butthereisalsotheissueofthecrimecommittedagainstthembeing

stolenbycriminaljusticeprofessionals.

McCold(2004)arguesthatcommunitiesofcare/micro-communitiesarevitaltoregulationand

socialcontrol,withtheincreasedopportunitiesformicro-communityRJthepotentialisbuiltin

foraggregatedneedsofthemacro-communitybeingserved.Thispositionsupportsthepremise

ofreintegrativeshaming.

However,theneedsandhealingofthemacrocommunityshouldnotsimplybeignored.Chapter

oneconcludeswithadiscussiononthepotentialhealingaspectsofRJ.Themacro-community

perspectivemaybemostappropriateformasscrimes,suchascrimesagainsthumanity.Likein

thecaseofSouthAfrica’sTruthandReconciliationCommission.

Reparation,Restoration&Restitution

Reparationofharmisthemostcentralcorevalue,aswithoutitrestorationcannotbefounded.

Restitutionconsistentlytakessecondplaceofimportancetothevictim’sopportunitytotalk

aboutthecrimeandmeetwiththeoffender(Coates&Gehm,1989;Umbreit,1994,in

Bazemore&Umbreit,2005).

WhatisBeingRepaired?Victim’sfeelings/harmcaused.Therelationship.Thecommunity.Allof

theabove!

Gromet&Darley(2006)conductedanexperimentontheacceptanceofRJfromacommunity

perspective.Itinvestigatedhowperceptionsofcrimeseverityandoftheoffenderaffected


16

judgments.Participantswereaskedtoratetheseriousnessofanumberofcrimescenarios

rangingfromvandalismtorapeandattemptedmurder.Theythenallocatedtheoffenderstogo

throughaRJconference,proceedthroughthetraditionalcourtprocessoramixtureofboth.For

thelattertwooptionstheparticipantscouldassignsentences;andwererequiredtoanswera

numberofquestions.TheyfoundthatparticipantsoptedforpureRJwhentheoffenceswere

perceivedaslessserious,forseriousoffencesthemixedandtraditionalpunitiveoptionswere

chosen.Thelevelofpunishmenttheparticipantsrecommendedwasaffectedbyfeaturesofthe

offenceandoffender–suchastheviolence,moraloffensivenessandseriousnessoftheoffence,

whichwereallhighlycorrelated.Answerstoquestionsyieldedtwoclusters(crime&offender),

withonlyoneindependentmeasurefromeachclusterpredictingtheoptionparticipantschose-

theperceivedseriousnessoftheoffence,andtheperceivedlikelihoodthattheoffendercould

berehabilitated.“...ourdatasupporttheviewofthosewhoarguethattoachieveperceptionsof

justice,atleastforseriousoffences,bothrestorativeandretributivemeasuresshouldbe

availablewithinthesystem(Barton,1999;Daly,2002;Duff,2003;Robinson,2003).”(Gromet&

Daly,2006,p422).Inanothertrial,thesuccessorunsuccessfuloutcomeagreements,impacted

people’sperceptions,regardlessofinformationaboutwhetherthelackofasuccessfuloutcome

wasthefaultoftheoffenderorboththeoffenderandvictimfailingtoreachanagreementfor

reparation.Theoffenderswhosuccessfullycompletedconferencesfromthemixedprocess

wereconsideredtohavethesamerehabilitationpotentialasthoseoffenderswhoweresentto

thepureRJprocess.However,offendersfromthemixedprocess,whohadunsuccessful

conferenceoutcomes,wereviewedashavinglessrehabilitativepotential;butashavingmore

potentialthanthosetheychosetoputthroughthetraditionalcourtprocess.

Gromet&Daley(2006)suggestthatparticipantsstilloptingtosendoffendersofsuccessful

conferencestoprisonreflectedtheachievementofjusticeashavingtwogoals–restorationof

thevictimandpunishmentoftheoffender.However,peoplealsowantedtogivetheoffender

anopportunityforrehabilitation.“Bothofthesefindingsprovideevidencethattheconceptof

restorativejusticeandrehabilitationarecloselyassociatedwitheachother”(Gromet&Daley,

2006,p423).TheyciteBilz’s(2002)findingthatthosemostsupportiveofsendingcasesforRJ

procedures,alsobelieveinthepotentialofrehabilitation.Thesefindingsilluminateaneedto

educatethosewhodonotbelieveinthevalueofrehabilitationsoastoincreasewillingnessfor

RJ.


17

Moreover,whileRJproceduresareviewedaseffectivewithoffencesoflowseverity,itis

claimedtobemosteffectivewithhighseveritycases(Wachteletal,2010;Umbreit&Vos,2000;

UN,2006).9Least,rehabilitationandRJcancreatehealingfortheaggregatedharmofmacro-

community.Whatofhealingforthemicro-communityandtheneedsofvictims?

Retaliation,Revenge&Retribution

VanStokkom’s(2013)undertookastudythatlookedspecificallyattheroleofrevengeandthe

‘zerosumrhetoric’-thatinthesufferingoftheoffenderthereishealingforthevictim.Itis

oftenbelievedandadvocatedthatthereshouldbezerotoleranceandstiffpenalties,forthose

whocommitseriouscrimes.Alackofsuchpenalties,likelongprisonsentences,canoftenbe

experiencedasadevaluationofthevictim’sworthandofthepaininflictedonthevictim’s

family(Pratt,2007;Zimring,2003;inVanStokkom,2013).Aprevailingassumptionisthatthe

rightsandprotectionofanoffenderisattheexpenseofthevictim,andviceversa(Elias,1986;

inVanStokkom,2013).VanStokkom(2013)suggestshoweverthatvictimologistsdonotseek

harsherpunishmentbutratheradvocateformoreattentiontotheneedsandemotionsof

victims.Forexample,VanDijk(2009;inVanStokkom2013)arguesthatvictimsshouldexpress

vindictivefeelingsastheyhavea‘naturalright’tobeenraged.Furthermore,itissuggestedthat

thesefeelingsshouldbetakenseriouslyandabsorbedintheproceedingsofthecriminaljustice

system.Thisinaccordancewithprotagonistsofvictim-impactstatements(VIS),arguethat

victimsshouldbefreetoexpresstheirhurtfulexperiences,andevenhaveasayinthe

sentencing.VanStokkom(2013)citesRJprotagonistssuchasBraithwaite(2003)whoarguethat

naturalretributiveurgesarenothealthy.Yet,tothecontrarysuchadvocatesofRJtalkabout

victimsneedingtobe‘ready’toengageinrespectfuldialogue,whichassumestherealityof

negativeemotionsinvictims.“Onereasonfordoubtsaboutthemeritsofrevengeisthatpeople

oftenbecomeobsessedwiththoughtsofrevengeandmaybringgreatharmtothemselvesand

othersintheirquestforit.Anotheristhatcampaignsforrevengeoftenescalate”(Govier,2002;

inVanStokkom,2013,p172).Itmaybearguedthatvictim-impactstatementsqualifyasonly

havingpartialrestorativeorientation(andalreadyformpartofexistingcriminaljusticesystems).

9“Restorativejustice’sconcernwithlessseverecasesinmostcountrieshasmeantthatafullyrestorativesystemhasnotbeenestablished.”(Hagemann,2003,p223).


18

Where,conferencingisofferedashavingwin-winoutcomesforallparties(e.g.Strang,2002;in

VanStokkom,2013)andpossessingfullrestorativeorientation.

VanStokkom(2013)referstovengefulfantasiesandthesenseofjusticepeopleexperiencefrom

literatureandfilms,whentheheroesstandsupforthemselforvindicatesawrongdoneto

them.“Thefailuretorespondtoaperceivedinjusticecanactuallyfurtherdiminishthevictim,

bothinhisorherowneyes,astheeyesofothers.”(Miller,2001;inVanStokkom,2013;p171).

VanStokkom(2013)referencesthreedistinctmoralgoalsunderlyingmotivationforrevenge.

Oneisthedesireto‘geteven’or‘balancethescales’,re-equilibrationofgainsandlosses,or

power.Thesecondistorestorethevictim’sself-esteem,demonstratinganintoleranceof

mistreatmentbyothers,whichcreatesasenseofstrengthandsavingface.Thirdly,itcanserve

aneducativefunctiontoteachtheoffenderalesson-aninstrumentalaimofdeterrence.Like

thepurposeofimprisonmentandrecidivism?VanStokkommayfailtoemphasize,ormissthe

truelessonasintendedfromonedirectlytoanotherthat-‘Iwillteachyoualessonnottohurt

meagain’.

“AccordingtoGovier,revengeismorallyobjectionablebecauseitconsistsofadeliberateeffort

todamageanddiminishanotherperson.…toactasagentsofrevenge,wehavetoindulgeand

cultivatesomethingevilinourselves.”(VanStokkom,2013;p172).Asaresult,itwouldseemto

betheveryessenceofthisthatmostpeoplewouldfeeluncomfortablewith,yetareaccepting

ofimprisonment.Thisalsoaccountsforadistinctionbetweenrevengeandretribution.Itis

arguedthatwhilsttheemotionalidentificationofrevengeexists,thepunitivemeasuressuchas

imprisonment,functionstotamepublicoutrageinmoremorallyacceptableways“…thetaskof

retributivejusticeisto‘tame’vengeanceandcanalizevengefuldesiresinalegalframeworkof

justdesertsandproportionality.”(VanStokkom,2013;172).Thiscouldsuggestthataneedfor

prisonscouldalsobetoprotecttheoffenderfromthepublic.Theinclusionandconsiderationof

the‘public’sneeds’shoutsloudthecallforinterventions(suchasRJconferencing)toinclude

thecommunity(atleastmicro,ifnotmacro),andtoalsorecognizetheneedsandfeelingsof

thoseindirectlyorinadvertentlyaffectedbycrime.

VanStokkom(2013)providesareviewofhowlittlecredencethereisinahomogenousviewof

victimresponsestocrime;forexamplehereportsontheresearchofPemberton(2011)who

foundthatvictimssufferingfromhigh-levelsofpost-traumaticstressfollowingseriouscrime

wereoftendisappointedatthepointthejudgeannouncedthesentence.Whereasforsome,the


19

lengthofsentenceprojectedamessagetothecommunityaboutthevictims’worthandsocial

standing;aslenientsentencestranslatedintothevictimbeingundeservingofrespect.Orth

(2004)foundthatforvictimsofviolentcrime,punishmentdidsatisfyfeelingsofrevenge,but

onlyinatransitoryway;asfouryearspostvictimizationhadnoinfluenceontheintensityof

vengefulfeelings.Analysedfurther,itisreportedthatthepunishmentisinsufficienttorelieve

vengeanceifruminationcontinues.Ruminativethinkingabouttheoffencehaswithitassociated

feelingsofanger.

Asanintroduction,chapteronesetoutsomeofthefundamentaltheoriesandprinciplesofRJ

thatinformedthecurrentactionresearch.Thiswasprovidedalongwiththedichotomythatis

oftenpresentedbetweenaRJapproachandthetraditionalCJS,viewedasretributivebymany

RJprotagonists.Withthepolarizedissuesraisedbetweenthetwoformsofjustice,thecurrent

studywasconcernedwithhowparticipantsviewedtheCJS.Itwouldalsoattempttoexploreif

theseviewswouldbechangedafterparticipatinginaRJC,andwhattheirviewswouldbeofRJ

afterparticipatinginanintervention.Somepeoplemakeassumptionsaboutvictims’willingness

toparticipateinRJbeingmotivatedbyrevenge.Tothisendthechapterprovidedresearchon

thisissue.Italsohighlightedhowtheneedforretributionismorecloselyassociatedwith

perceptionsoftheoffenders’capacityforrehabilitationandbytheseverityofoffences.

Retributionisadministeredbyneutralagentsandcalledforbythemacro-community;where

revengeispersonalandcanbedamagingfortheindividual.Punishmentdoesnotincreasethe

victim’swellbeingbutmayaffirmtheirsocialstatusandself-worth.IfRJisnotlimitedtothe

victimsandmicro-community,itrunstheriskofmarginalizingthosemostaffected.Withno

universallyaccepteddefinitionanddifferentformsofpracticesbeinglabeled‘restorative’,the

chaptersetoutthedefinitionadoptedbythisresearchandoutlinedtheprincipalmodelsofRJ.

Chapter2providesempiricalresearchofRJpracticeandguidance.


20

v CHAPTER2–EMPIRICALRESEARCH&PRACTICE:WHATWORKS?WHAT’SBEENFOUND!

“Restorativejusticerealisessharedsocialvalues,butdoessothroughdifferentculturally-basedbeliefsabouthumanneeds.”(Braithwaite,etal,2013,p91).

Introduction

TheUN(2006)advisesthatstandardsforRJprogrammes,andevennationalstandardsguiding

policiesshouldbebasedonempiricalresearch.

Thischaptersetsouttoaddressthefollowingobjectives–

-ToexploretheexistingresearchevidencethatRJiseffectiveinmeetingitsaims.

-TodrawonresearchandpolicyguidancetoclarifyhowRJshouldbeimplementedwithina

Correctionssetting.

However,thechapterwillstartwithconsiderationofthemotivationforpeopletoparticipatein

RJ,includingissuesoftimingandwhentheinterventionisoffered.ItlooksatwhetherRJmeets

itsaimsandthesatisfactionratingsofthosethatparticipate.Theliteraturereviewhighlights

whatisimportantforimplementationbasedontheexperiencesandoutcomesforparticipants.

Internationalresearchisexaminedwithafocusonprisonstudies(includingtheSycamoreTree

programme)thatwoulddirecttheintendedactionandresearch.

What’stheEvidenceRegardingRJEngagement?

Therehavebeenanextensivenumberofstudiesthatprovideempiricaldataonthereasons

peoplearemotivatedtoparticipateinRJ(e.g.Shaplandetal,2006,UK;Umbreit&Vos,2000,

USA).Forbothvictimsandoffendersthesereasonscanusuallybeexplainedintwoclusters–

theselfandtheother.

Forvictimstheirreasonsregardingtheoffenderinclude–wantingtoheartheoffendertake

responsibility;wantingtohelptheoffendertonotreoffend/rehabilitateandoutofasenseof

dutytosociety.Thereasonstheyparticipateforthemselvesis–togetinformationaboutwhat

andwhytheoffencehappened;toreceivereparationandrestitution;tohavetheirvoiceheard;


21

outofabeliefthatforgivenesswillprovidehealing/forhealingandtolettheoffenderknowhow

theoffenceimpactedthem.1011

Umbreitetal(2005)providepercentagesforthechiefreasonsvictimsaremotivatedto

participateindialoguewithoffendersincasesofsevereviolence–toseekinformation58%;to

showtheoffendertheimpactoftheiractions43%andtohavecontactwiththeperson

responsible40%.

ForoffendersUmbreitetal(2005)foundthechiefreasonsforoffenderswantingtohave

dialoguewithvictimsincasesofsevereviolencewas–toapologize38%;tohelpvictimsheal

38%andtodowhateverwouldbenefitvictims26%.Forthemselves,theyhoped–the

experiencewouldbenefitthem74%;thatitwouldcontributetotheirownrehabilitation33%;to

changehowthevictimsviewedthem21%andforspiritualreasons18%.Eveninthecaseof

offendersondeathrowparticipatinginRJ,theirreasonsdidnotdifferfromoffenderswith

determinantsentences(Umbreit&Vos,2000).Theygavereasonssuchas–aprocessofself-

examination,inturnbeingpartoftheir‘healingjourney’andaspartoftheirreligiousfaith.

Umbreit&Vosnotedthatreligionbecameimportanttotheseoffenders.Theyfelttheneedto

apologise;tohelpthevictim’shealing;togivesomethingbackforthewrongdoneandoutofa

feelingofowingthevictims.

Bolivar(2013)notedthatpreconceivedideasaboutvictimizationorothernegativeeffectsalso

influencevictims’willingnesstoparticipateinvictim-offendermediation(VOM).12Limited

literatureonwhypeoplerefusetoparticipateinRJ,pointstothreefactors–theactualmeeting,

theoffenderandtheinfluenceofsignificantothers(suchstudiesareprovidedinBolivar,2013).

Themeetingreferstothelackofvaluegiventotheoffenceortheconference;negative

evaluationsofthemeetingrevolvearoundfearofone’sowncapacityforameetingorfeelings

10Bolivar(2013)wouldsuggestthatthislatterreasonisforthebenefitoftheoffender.11AstudyfromtheNetherlandsfoundthatself-orientatedreasonsposethestrongestdetermininginfluence(Laxminarayanetal,2013;citedinBolivar,2013).12Itmayalsobeusefultoconsiderwhetherterminologyaffectsvictims’willingness,terminologysuchas‘mediation’andwhatpreconceivedideasthatmightconjure.Mediationasatermcouldgiveoffenderstheideaofsomeformofdiminishedresponsibilityandequallygivevictimsafeelingoffalseresponsibility.


22

ofcoercion.Issuesrelatedtotheoffenderinclude,fearoftheoffenderornegativeevaluations

aboutmeetingthem(likeskepticismorrefusaltoentertaintheideaofdevelopingarelationship

post-conference).Theinfluenceofsignificantothersliesinadvisethatthevictimnot

participate.

Bolivar(2013)conductedastudyonVOMinSpainandBelgium,13usingamixed-methoddesign

ofbothquantitativeandqualitativemeasures(includingthePost-TraumaticGrowthInventory).

Victimsofpersonalviolenceeitheragreedordeclinedtoparticipatein-directorindirectVOM.

Bolivarsetouttoinvestigatethesimilaritiesanddifferencesinvictims’perceptionsofthe

offender,theoffenceandtheircommunitiesofcare.Fourmainissueswerefound–thevictims’

perceptionofharm;theoffenceandtheoffender;reasonsfornotifyingthepoliceandother

‘influencingfactors’.

Regardingthevictims’perceptionsofharm,thethreegroups(direct,indirect-VOMandrefusal)

variedmarkedlyoftheirevaluationofharmcausedtothem,likefearandfeelingsofisolation.

Quantitativeanalysisshowedthatknown-offendervictimsregarded‘damage’(victims’

perceptionoftheirownlevelofvictimization-restoration)moreimportantlythan‘unknown-

offendervictims’.Althoughnotstatisticallysignificant,thoseoptingforVOM(directorindirect)

presentedwithhigherscoresofpost-traumaticgrowth(e.g.personalgrowthandappreciation

oflifepost-trauma).

Victim’sperceptionsoftheoffenceandtheoffender,showedthatofthoseparticipatingin

directVOM-“…tendedtopayattentiontothecircumstancesthatsurroundedtheoffenceor

theroletheythemselvesplayedintheoffence.Thesevictimsalsopresentedamorepositive

viewoftheoffender,evenwhentheoffenderwasunknowntothem.”(Bolivar,2013,p203).

BolivarreportsthattherewerethreevictimswhodeclinedandsixwhoacceptedindirectVOM

thathadreceivedthreatsduringandaftertheoffence.BothdirectandindirectVOMvictims,

13Bolivar(2013)providesinformationonlegislationinSpainandBelgium,statingthat–“…theSpanishcriminalcode,introducedin1995,establishes‘reparationofharm’asamitigatingfactorwithincriminalprocedure.Inpractice,mediationhasbecomeatoolfordiversionofminorcrimes,despitethefactthatmediationmaybeofferedatvariousstagesofthecriminaljusticeprocess.InBelgium,since2005(Article553,CodeofCriminalProcedure),victim-offendermediationforadultoffendersisconsideredapublicservicethatmustbeavailableforanypersonwhohasastakeinacrime.Asaconsequence,mediationforredressisavailableatdifferentstagesofthecriminalprocedureandtendstodealwithseriouscrimes.”(p195).


23

hadquestionsabouttheoffenceandfeelingsofself-blame,muchhigherthanthevictimswho

refused(albeitnotstatisticallysignificant).“Importantly,thisalsoimpliesthatvictimsneedto

understandtheroletheythemselvesplayedintheoffencebyelaboratingself-blamefeelings.”

(Bolivar,2013,p207).14ThosewhorefusedVOMhaddevelopedtheirownexplanationofthe

offence,withtheoffenderbeingtoblameandsawtheoffenderinnegativeterms.Quantitative

datasupportedthequalitative,forexample,knownandunknown-offendervictimsdiffered

significantlyonperceptionsoftheoffenderbeforemeditation,withunknown-offendervictims

havingabetterperceptionoftheoffender.

Bolivarfoundotherfactorsaffectingvictimparticipation,suchastheindividual’sideology,need

forpsychologicalhelp,communityofcareandperceptionsofsocialsupport.Communityofcare

wasashaspreviouslybeenfoundthatthoseparticipatingviewedtheirsocialsupportpositively

–asacceptingandsupportiveoftheirdecisions.15Whatwouldlikelybeofparticularsignificance

tothecurrentresearchwasBolivar’s‘ideological’factor.Ideology,referredtosomevictims

beingactiveparticipantsinsocialmovementsororganizations,whichmadethemappreciative

ofmediationasasocialstrategy.MostofthesevictimswerewillingtoparticipateindirectVOM.

Bolivar(2013)arguesthatthefindingsfromherresearchcontradictpreviousfindings(citing

Hoyle,2002;Shaplandetal,2011)suggestingthatpeople’sreluctancetoengageinmediationis

basedontheirstereotypesoftheoffender-basedonsocialconstructswhenhavinghadno

previouscontactwiththeoffender.AsBolivarfoundthatthosewillingtoparticipateindirect

VOMhadnopreviousknowledgeoftheoffenderbuttendedtohavemorepositiveviewsabout

themandatleastviewthemaslessthreatening.Bolivarmayhaveunderestimatedtheinfluence

ofsocialandculturalconstructs;whenshecitesstudieslikeLaxminarayanetal(2013)

conductedintheNetherlands,ashavingmajorityknown-offendervictimsparticipatingindirect

VOM.TherecouldbeafurtherdimensiontothisforBermudabasedonitssizeandthepotential

influenceofsocialconnectedness.Whilepeoplemaynotknowoffenderspersonally,theyare

likelytoknowsomeonewhodoesortobeawareoftheiroffending.

14Itmayalsobethatinassumingadegreeofresponsibility,victimsinterpretwhattheydidordidnotdo,ashavingsomesemblanceofcontrolovertheirlivesandwhathappenstothem.Totalacceptanceoftheoffenderhavingthecontrolcanleavepeoplefeelingvulnerableandeasilyopentore-victimization,whetherrealityorperception.Thatstagehaspossiblybeenset,withtheuseof‘mediation’.

15ThevictimsparticipatingindirectVOMhadhighscoresontheSocialAcknowledgementquestionnaire.


24

Inapostalsurveyconductedon897Australianand461Japaneserespondentswhohadbeena

victimofviolentcrimeorhadarelative/friendwhohadbeenavictim,oroffenderofviolent

crime,differencesinsocialvaluesandbeliefswerefoundbetweenthetwocountriesregarding

RJ.“Withineachculture,thedifferencesbetweenoffendersandvictimsandtheircommunities

ofsupportarelessmarkedthancross-culturaldifferences.”(Braithwaiteetal,2013,p114).For

Australians,valuewasplacedonthe‘victimsvoiceandamends’,16plusoffenderreintegration

andrehabilitation.FortheJapanese,victimsandoffendersvalued‘victimforgiveness’17and

offenderreintegrationandrehabilitationrespectively(Braithwaiteetal,2013).Braithwaiteetal

suggeststheabsenceofindividualisticneedsofvictimsvoiceandamendsintheJapanese

populationisreflectiveoftheJapaneseculture’semphasisonapologyandcollectivewellbeing;

andhowtheuseofRJinAsiahasbeencriticized.18Braithwaiteetalalsocitescriticismsraisedof

AustralianRJconferencing,asithasbeenarguedthatitisinadequateinprotectingvulnerable

groups,suchaswomenindomesticviolencecasesandchildrenincasesofchildabuse.“Here

theconcernisthatwithouttheprotectionofrightsfromcourt-basedjustice,restorativejustice

leavesvulnerablegroups(womenandchildren)opentointimidationandbeingthreatenedby

powerfulotherswhorefutetheirclaims.”(Braithwaiteetal,2013,p117).

Presumablythen,ifasocietyvaluesindividualinterests,thentheRJmicro-communitymaybe

mostappropriate.Ifthesocietyvaluesmorethebettermentofthecollectivecommunityover

individuals(asistheorizedofAsiancultureswithConfucianismintheirpast,Braithwaiteetal,

2013),thenthemacro-communitymaybemoreappropriate.

Bolivar’s(2013)andBraithwaiteetal’s(2013)findingsarenotunrelated.Braithwaiteetalstress

howthereislittlevariationinthevaluesofvictimsandoffenders(andthatthesevaluesare

16“…victims’needtofeelempowered,tohavetheirsayabouttheharmdonetothem,toaskforanexplanationandseekreparation(victimvoiceandamends).”Braithwaiteetal(2013,p96-97).17“…victimsneededtoforgivetheoffenderandseetheoffenderrehabilitated(victimforgiveness).”Braithwaiteetal(2013,p96).18“ApologyinrestorativejusticesettingsinJapancanberitualisticandlacksincerity(Hosoi&Nishimura,1999).Inotherinstances,policeandprosecutorsusethewidespreaddesiretoavoidconflictanddamagingrelationshipstoelicitconfessionsandreparationwithinsufficientregardfordueprocessandthetruth(Yoshida,2003).Goel(2005)providesacriticalcommentaryonhowharmonyvalues,assumedtoprevailinAsiancultures,leadtosubservienceandoppressioninwomenexperiencingdomesticviolencebecauseself-sacrificeinwomenislinkedtomaintainingrelationalharmony.”(Braithwaiteetal,2013,p116).


25

linkedtowillingnesstoparticipateinRJmeetings),howeverculturalvaluesdovary.Spainand

Belgiummaybemoreculturallysimilar(asinBolivar’sstudy).MaybeasBolivarfound,the

greaterimpactwasonwhetherornotvictimshadquestions,asthosethatknewtheoffender

haddevelopedtheirownexplanationsoftheoffence.Bolivar’sresearchhoweverprovides

usefulinformation.Onethingthatmayhavebeenignoredincasesofpersonalviolence(aside

fromculture)couldbetheissueoftime,combinedwithproximity,in‘theneedtoknow'.

“Victimsmaybenervousabouttheoffender’srelease,butmanymayhave‘puttheoffence

behindthem’insomesense.Whattheconferencesthemselves,however,haveshownisthat

theoffenderandthevictimintheseseriousviolentoffencesmaywellhavesomelinks,interms

oflivingnearbyorknowingpeopleincommon,andthattheseareissueswhichpeoplewishto

havetheopportunityofexploring.”(Shaplandetal,2004,p33).Thiswouldthenbeexpectedto

bethecaseinBermuda.

InRestorativeJustice:WhatisitanddoesitWork?Menkel-Meadow(2007)reportsthat

participationratesrangefrom40-60%ofvictimsreferred.“Interestingly,participationratesfor

victimsgoupwhenmoretimeelapsesbetweenreferralandparticipationincasesinvolving

personalinjury(assault),butdecreasewhenmoretimeelapsesincasesinvolvingproperty

(theft,vandalism)(Umbreitetal,2005)”(citedinMenkel-Meadow,2007,p14).Menkel-

Meadowfurtherhighlightsacurvilinearrelationshipofvictimparticipationrateswiththelowest

ratesofparticipationoccurringwiththeleastandmostseriousoffenses–whereatoneendof

thecurvevictimsmaynotfeelbotheredenoughtoparticipateforlessseriouscrimeandatthe

otherend,fearfuloftheoffenderorofre-experiencingthetraumainseriouscasesofbodily

harm(Coates&Gehm,1985,Wyrick&Costanzo,1999,citedinMenkel-Meadow,2007).

Theissueoftimemayalsoinfluenceoffenders’participation,inregardsnotjusttotheir

psychologicalpreparednessbutalsothephaseinthecriminaljusticeprocessthatRJisoffered.

Shaplandetal(2004)intheirActionResearch(discussedfurtheroninthischapter)suggested

that“Inasimilarway,restorativejusticecanbepartofapackageofmeasurespost-disposal,

thoughherethefocusisoftenmoreoffender-orientated,designedtoindicatetotheoffender

theconsequencesofoffendingonvictims,thoughwithsomereparativeorrestorativeaimsas

well.Whatthefirstyearofourschemeshasshown,however,isthatiftheschemeisoperating

post-sentence/disposal,unlessitisalmostan‘automatic’componentofsuchdisposals(as


26

victimawarenesselementsofreferralorders,orinfinalwarnings),thentherecanbesignificant

problemsofoffenderrefusal.”(p54).19ThereisonlypartialsupportofthisclaimbyDe

Mesmaecker(2013)whoarguesthatoffenders’reasonsforparticipatinginRJpost-sentencewill

likelybefarlessbasedoninstrumentalreasonsthanpre-sentence,however,whenoffender

involvementmayhavelittleornoimpactonthesentencesomearestillwillingtoparticipate.20

DeMesmaecker’s(2013)Belgiumstudywasbasedonvictimsanddefendantswhowereoffered

VOMpre-sentenceandwhenchargesagainstthedefendantwouldnotbedroppedregardlessof

theVOMoutcome.DeMesmaecker’sfindingsprovideopportunityfordiscussionandreflection

onwhatmightbeusefulforconsiderationofRJpre-convictioninBermuda(andprovides

guidance–‘whatmattersinimplementation’).

DoesRJMeetitsAims?

StartingoutDeMesmaeckerdefinesreparationintheRJworldasconstitutingrepairof

psychologicalharmandharmtorelationships,beyondfinancialcompensation,implyinga

distinctionbetweenRJconferencingandmediation.21“Mediationwithaviewtoarrangingthe

financialsettlementofdamagesisnottheepitomeofrestorativejusticescholars.Ideally,the

partiesleavetheprocessnotjustwithafinancialagreementbutwithanunderstandingofeach

other’ssituationandposition(Daly,2003).”(citedinDeMesmaecker,2013,p353).InBelgium

DeMesmaeckercommentsthat,conferencingislimitedforusewithyoungoffenders(further

suggestiveofdifferentprocesses).

FocusingonthreefundamentalprinciplesofRJ(voluntaryparticipation,facilitatorimpartiality

andconfidentiality),DeMesmaecker(2013)investigatedhowparticipants’perceptionsofthe

principlesmightimpacttheirsatisfactionwiththemediationprocess.

19“Conferencinginvolvingsevereoffenceswillrequiresubstantialpreparationandwillnotoccuruntilatleastseveralyearsafterthecrime.”(Wachteletal,2010,p119).

20Again,thereasonsforthisdifferencecouldbecultural.Shaplandetal’sstudywasconductedintheUK.21“TheprimaryfocusofVOMisoftenmaterialrestitutionratherthanemotionalrestorationorreconciliation(Umbreitetal,1994).”(Strangetal,2013,p13).


27

AccordingtoDeMesmaeckertheprincipleofvoluntaryparticipationisnotjustaboutensuring

thatpeopleparticipatewillinglytoensurethattheprocessandexchangeisgenuine,butthatit

isalsobasedoninformedconsent–thatparticipantsareawareofwhattheprocessentailsand

thatitcanbeendedatanytime.Thatitcaninvolvegentlepersuasionofoffendersbutthat

victimsshouldchoosefreely.“…itisacceptablethatacertaindegreeofcoerciononoffendersis

inevitable,butunfairinducementssuchascriminaljusticeofficialspressuringdefendantsto

participateshouldbebannedfromrestorativejustice(DeMesmaecker,2011;VanNess,2003).”

(DeMesmaecker,2013,p338).Further,accordingtoDeMesmaeckervoluntaryparticipation

shouldalsomeanmutuallyagreedoutcomes,howeveroffender’sparticipationisoftenmade

againstconsiderationofalternativecriminalprosecutionand,withvictims’awarenessof

implicationsforoffendersiftheychosenottoparticipate.

Withtheuseofscriptsbyfacilitators(todirectthemediation)DeMesmaecker,questions

participants’senseofcontrol,whichwasofgreatimportanceinherstudyandwasalsolinkedto

theimpartialityofthemediator.Circularly,shearguesthatknowingwhattheprocessentails

formspartofinformedconsent.Whilerecognizingthatnegotiationscouldbeneededifthe

victimsandoffenders’wisheswereincompatibleregardingtheprocess;DeMesmaecker

suggestsfutureresearchinvestigatetheimpactonperceptionsoffacilitatorimpartialityand

voluntarinessifparticipantshavelittleornocontrolontheprocess.22

Confidentialityisanimportantprincipleforallowingparticipantstofeelfreetoshareinthe

knowledgethatwhatissharedisnotdisclosedtothirdparties.DeMesmaeckerreferstotheuse

ofpoliceofficersinFamilyGroupConferencinginBelgiumandAustraliaandquestionshow

openparticipantsmightbewithpoliceofficerspresent,whilealsoacknowledgingthatpolice

presencecanhelptoperpetuateasenseofseriousnessandofphysicalsafety.Impartialityrefers

totheperceivedperformanceofthefacilitatorsto“…refrainfromtakingsidesintheconflict

whichtheymediate…”(DeMesmaecker,p341).AccordingtoDeMesmaeckerimpartialitywas

alsolinkedtonotoverlysteeringtheprocessandmaintainingopennesstoeachperson’s

perspective.

22Theuseofscriptsistoguideandstructuretheprocessopposedtomutingparticipants’expressionandexploration.“…thescriptprescribesaseriesofopen-endedquestionsthatencouragepeopletorespond“affectively”,thatis,toexpresshowtheywereaffectedbytheissuethatbroughtthemtogether.”(Wachteletal,2010).


28

“Withintherestorativejusticemovementitisassumedthattheproceduralguaranteesof

confidentiality,facilitator’simpartialityandvoluntaryparticipationareinlargepartresponsible

forparticipationsatisfactionwithrestorativeprogrammes.Yetlittleisknownsofarabouthow

participantsinrestorativeprogrammesperceivethesethreefundamentalprinciples.”(De

Mesmaecker,2013,p357).

54participantsofpropertyandviolentoffenceswereinterviewedpreandpostdirectorshuttle

mediation23;thisincludedvictimsandoffendersthatwerebothknownandunknowntoeach

other.DeMesmaeckerfoundthatparticipantshadtwoissueswiththeprincipleof

confidentiality–thatthejudgewouldnotknowthetruthabouttheexactcircumstancesofthe

offenceanditprecludedthemfrominformingthejudgeabouttheunwillingnessoftheother

partytoengageinmediation.

Whileliteraturetendstospeakofoffender’sadmittingguiltinmediationandthendenyingitin

court,DeMesmaeckerfoundtheoppositeinherstudy-victimsadmittedtheirknowledgethat

theallegedoffenderwasnotguilty,butrefusedtosignagreementsacknowledgingthisforthe

court.Ifbothpartiesdidnotagreetosharethemediationoutcomewiththecourtthiscouldnot

happen.

DeMesmaeckerwritesoftheimpactthatthiscanhaveonthelegitimacyofthemediation

processasprocedurallyunfair.Further,itwasfoundthatparticipantsinthestudywere

unfavourableofmediationreplacingcourtprosecution,exceptinthecaseofminoroffences.

Thiswouldappeartospeaktoperceptionsofjustice.DeMesmaeckerfoundtworeasonsgiven

forwhytheparticipantsfeltthecourtshoulddealwithcases.One,itwasfeltthatinorderfor

theoffenderstolearnfromtheirmistake,theyhadtobeface-to-facewiththejudge.Secondly,

thatthejudgerecognizetheeffortsmadeinthemediationprocessandtheargumentsresulting

fromit.“Thereasonpeopleattachsuchimportancetotheformalacknowledgementoftheir

activitieswithintheframeworkofmediationisthatparticipatinginrestorativeinterventionsis

notaneasytask,neitherforvictimsnorforoffenders.Bothhavetofacefeelingsofshame,guilt,

anger,andsoforth…Oncetheyhavefacedalltheseobstacles,peoplewantajudgetoshow

respectforthisbereferringtoandacknowledgingtheirefforts.”(DeMesmaecker,2013,p356).

23ShuttleVOMinvolvesthemediatorgoingbackandforthbetweenthevictimandoffender.


29

Theuseofascript(relatedtoimpartiality)andPoliceinvolvementinfacilitatingconferences

(furtherrelatedtoconfidentiality)wouldbefeaturesofthecurrentActionResearch.

RatingsofsatisfactionwithRJprocesseshaveproventobeakeymeasureofresearch,in

determiningwhetherRJmeetsitsaimsandprovidesparticipantswithwhattheywanttogain.

Factorsrevealedbythesestudiesalsoindicatewhatmattersinimplementationtoensure

success.

SatisfactionRatings:Victim&OffenderExperiencesandOutcomes

Ithasbeenargued,“…perhapsthosewhoareabletochooseamongjusticeoptionsaremore

satisfiedwiththeirexperiences.”(Umbreit,Coates&Vos,2004,pp287;citedinBolivar2013).

Anumberofstudieshavefoundthatbothvictimsandoffendersexperiencehighlevelsof

satisfactionfromparticipatinginRJprocesses,incomparisontotheCJS(Poulson,2003,in

Menkel-Meadow,2007).24ThisincludesstudiesconductedintheUS;Australia;Israel;Canada

andtheUKandthatincludeddiversesetsofvictims(Menkel-Meadow,2007).Fromameta-

analysisofsevenstudies,itwasreportedthatvictimsparticipatinginRJprocesseswere50%less

likelytobefeelupsetabouttheoffence,thanvictimsthatwenttocourt.Also,offenderswere

6.9timesmorelikelytoofferanapologytothevictimsinRJ;anditwassuggestedthatthislikely

accountedforvictimsbeingmorelikelytoforgivetheoffenders(Poulson,2003,inMenkel-

Meadow,2007).

Satisfactionratingshavebeenmeasuredinanumberofways,includingpsychologicalwellbeing,

forexampleparticipants’satisfactionatgettingtheopportunitytotelltheirstoryorbasedon

theirperceptionoffairtreatmentbyfacilitators/mediators;incomparisontojudges(Poulson,

2003,inMenkel-Meadow,2007).Suchfindingsarecontrarytoexpectationsofvictimsonly

seekingfinancialrestitution.25AstudyfromAustraliafoundthatvictims,whoparticipatedin

poorlyhandledRJprocesses,orwhereprocessesdidnottakeplace,werelesssatisfiedthan

24ItispredictablethatifoffendersoflessseriousoffencesparticipateinRJprocessesthatdivertthemawayfromtheCJS,theyarelikelytofindthismorepreferable(Menkel-Meadow,2007).25“Interestingly,victimsfrequentlyreportthatwhilerestitutionwastheprimarymotivatorforthemtoparticipateinVOM,whattheyappreciatedmostabouttheprogramwastheopportunitytotalkwiththeoffender.”(Umbreitetal,2005,p271)


30

victimswhowentthroughtheCJSorwhohadparticipatedinsuccessfulRJprocesses(Strang,

2001,inMenkel-Meadow,2007).

AgreementsforrestitutionfollowinganRJinterventionaremuchmorelikelytobereached

(90%)inface-to-faceVOM(Umbreitetal,2005;Umbreit,2001,Umbreit&Coates,1992,citedin

Menkel-Meadow,2007).

Compliancerateswithagreementshavealsobeenfoundtobehighrangingfrom75-100%in

studieswithcourtcontrolgroups(e.g.Haley&Neugebauer,1992,Marshall,1998,Kuhn,1987,

McCold&Wachtel,1998,citedinMenkel-Meadow,2007).Latimeretal’s(2001)meta-analysis

ofeightRJstudiesfounda33%highercomplianceratewithrestitutionincomparisontocourt

case-controlgroups.InacomparisonbetweenRJandcourtcases,USstudiesfoundcompliance

of81%forRJto58%forcourts;andwithanevaluationstudyofsixdifferentprogrammes89%

RJcompletionand75%courtcasecompletions(Umbreitetal,2005;Ervin&Schneider,1990;

respectively,citedinMenkel-Meadow,2007).

OfaUSandCanadianstudyonVOM,Umbreitetal(2005)foundthreevariablescouldaccount

forover40%ofthevarianceassociatedwithvictimsatisfaction–thevictimfeltgoodaboutthe

mediator;restitutionagreementswereconsideredfairandtheyhadastronginitialdesireto

meettheoffender.Umbreitetal(2005)reportonthreestudiesthatfoundover90%ofvictims

andoffenderswouldrecommendgroupconferencingprogrammestootherpeople.

In2001theUKHomeOffice(undertheircrimereductionprogramme)commissionedresearch

ofthreeRJschemeslargelyfocusedonadultoffenders,fundedfortwotothreeyears.Across

theschemestheRJpracticesinvolveddirectandindirectmediationandRJconferencing(RJC).

Ofeachschemeacontrolgroupwasusedtoassessreconvictionrates.Shaplandandothers

providefourreportsontheactionresearchthatranfrom2001-2006.Focusingonthethird

reportandlargelyonthefindingsoftheschemethatusedonlyconferencing,26thefindingsalso

provideguidance.Shaplandetal(2007)foundthatvictimswereapproachedinpersonatcourt,

byletterortelephoneandallmethodsofcontactwerefoundtobesatisfactorytothevictims.A

face-to-facepreparationmeetingafterinitialcontactwasconsideredessentialandvictimswere

appreciativeoftheschemestaffbeingpreparedtomeetwiththemattheirhomestoanswer26TheJRC(JusticeResearchConsortium)schemeprovidedconferencingto152offendersand216victims(withacontrolgroupof118offendersand166victims).Theparticipantsviewswereobtainedjustaftertheconferencesandthenwereinterviewed8-9monthspostconference.


31

questions(Shaplandetal,2007).Itwasnotedthataskingaboutpreparationinformationafter

theconference,wouldallowparticipantstoknowiftheinformationtheyhadreceivedhadbeen

adequate.Theinformationtheyreceivedshouldhavealsoallowedthemtomaketheirdecision

toparticipate.Shaplandetal(2007)foundover75%oftheoffendersand86%ofthevictimsfelt

they‘definitely’or‘probably’hadenoughinformation.Despitepreparation,Shaplandetal

(2007)reportthatparticipantswerestillnervous,especiallytheoffenders.However,of

informationprovidedaftertheconferenceonly–69%ofoffendersand71%ofvictimssaidthat

weregivenanyinformationaboutwhatwouldhappenasaresultoftheconference.Ratings

withregardstoinformationaboutoutcomeagreementswereevenless(67%offendersand64%

victims)fortheconferenceparticipants.Althoughtheschemeswerepilotswithfixedtermsof

fundingandthefacilitatorsmayhavelackedexperienceandknowledge,Shaplandetal(2007)

suggested“Nonetheless,wethinkitisimportantthatschemesworkoutwhatoutcomesare

likelyandthatfacilitatorslaythisoutclearlytopotentialparticipants.”(p13).Lessthan3%of

participantswerenotclearaboutthevoluntarynatureofparticipationorfelttheyhadsufficient

timetoconsidertheirdecisiontoparticipate.

92%ofvictimsand86%ofoffenderssaidthatthepracticalarrangementsoftheconferencehad

beendiscussed,however13%oftheoffenderssaidtheyhadnotbeeninformedoftheprecise

times.Thesewereessentiallyfromtheprisongroups,andShaplandetal(2007)suggestthatthe

difficultieswerelikelymoreabouttheprisonsthantheJusticeResearchConsortium(JRC)

scheme.Suggestingthattheprisonsoftenhaddifficultiesallocatingappropriatevenuesand

times.

Theconferenceparticipantswereaskedwhomtheythoughttheconferencewasfor(andcould

providemorethanoneresponse)–55%ofoffendersand49%ofvictimssaidthattheythought

theconferencewasforthem.71%ofoffendersand73%ofvictimsthoughtthatitwasforthe

otherpartyand11%offendersand20%victimsthoughtitwasforthecommunity(Shaplandet

al,2007).

Shaplandetal(2007)reportthatmostparticipantsweresatisfiedwiththeconference,however

therewereafewthatwerenot.Whenparticipantsweredissatisfiedittendedtobewithone

particularaspectopposedtooveralldissatisfaction.Onecausalfactorofdissatisfactionamong

offendersrelatedtotheabsenceofvictims,inthattherewasahigherdegreeofdissatisfaction

whenvictimswereabsent.Fromanalysisofcasesinwhichdissatisfactionwasbasedona


32

numberofissues,Shaplandetalconcludedthat–“Ifthereisanycommondenominatorhere,it

isthatcaseswithadisputebetweenoffenderandvictimastothefacts,particularlyifthe

offenderwasdrunkandcouldnotremembermuch,mayproveproblematic.”(p28).Theyalso

foundoutcomeagreementstobeamajorsourceofdissatisfaction.

32%ofoffendersand20%ofvictimssaidthattheywerenervousbeforetheconference.64%

and66%ofoffendersandvictimsrespectively,foundtheconference‘very’or‘fairly’emotional

comparedto33%and32%ofoffendersandvictimsrespectivelywhofoundit‘notatall’or‘not

really’emotional.Shaplandetal(2007)foundsignificantcorrelationsbetweenthelevelof

nervousnessanddegreeofemotionalityexperienced–withthosewhoexperienceditasmost

emotional,havingbeenthosethatweremostnervous.“Perhapsanotherproofofthisisthatthe

emotionalscarsfromtheoffencehadnot,formost,healedcompletelybythetimeofthe

conference.Halftheoffendersand31percentofvictimsfounditvery(ortosomeextent)

difficultorpainfultogothroughtheprocess.”(Shaplandetal,2007,p39)

AlthoughdictatedbytheCJS,Shaplandetal(2007)askedparticipantsaboutwhetherornot

theythoughtthetimingbetweentheoffenceandtheconferencewasright;althoughtherewas

greatdisparityintheinterveningtimesforeachcase–76%ofoffendersand72%ofvictims

thoughtthetimewasright.17%ofoffendersand22%ofvictimsthoughtthetimebetweenthe

offenceandtheconferencewastoolong.

Shaplandetal(2007)recognizeddifferentaimsofRJCandprovideddirectfindingspertainingto

theseaims(similartowhatDeMesmaecker(2013)hadlatersetouttodo).SuchasRJC

providingtheopportunityforvictimsandtheirsupporterstoexpresstheharmdonetothem–

83%ofoffendersand60%ofvictimsthoughttheconferencemadetheoffenderrealizethe

harmthatwascausedbytheoffence(accountability).

FindingResolution:Victim&OffenderExperiencesandOutcomes

AnaimofRJCistoallowthepartiesinvolvedto“…collectivelyresolvehowtodealwiththe

aftermath”(Marshall,1998)/solveproblemscausedbythecrime.Shaplandetal(2007)found–

51%ofoffendersand38%ofvictimsthoughtthattheconferencehad‘verymuch’or‘tosome

extent’solvedproblemsstemmingfromtheoffence.


33

“Adifferentaimofrestorativejusticeistoprovideasenseofclosuretotheoffenceandtoany

conflictcreated…Partofthisisseenbysometheoristsasrelevanttohealingandreconciliation.”

(Shaplandetal,2007,p39).

OftheShaplandetalstudy80%ofoffendersfelttheygainedabetterunderstandingoftheir

offendingandthemselves.69%ofvictimssaidtheyhadabetterunderstandingaboutthe

offence;while19%reportedgainingnounderstanding.39%ofvictimsfeltmoresecurepost-

conference,46%felttheconferencehadnoeffectonthemand9%feltlesssecure.Over50%of

victimsfeltthattheygainedasenseofclosure,andafurther20%felttheyhadgainedasenseof

closuretosomeextent.

Overall73%ofoffendersand64%ofvictimsthoughtthatconferencingwasagoodwayof

dealingwiththeoffence–“Giventhatfewoffendersandvictimshadanypreviousknowledgeof

restorativejusticeandthisworkhadnostatutorybasis,thesearequitehighfiguresintermsof

confidenceintheprocessandwhatithaddoneforthem.”(Shaplandetal,2007,p40).

74%ofoffendersand78%ofvictimsreportedthattheywould‘definitely’or‘probably’

recommendRJtoothersofsimilaroffences.“Conferencevictimsandoffenderswere

significantlymoresatisfiedwithwhatthecriminaljusticesystemhaddonewiththeircasethan

controlgroupparticipants,suggestingthereisapositiveeffectofparticipatinginrestorative

justiceonconfidenceincriminaljustice.”(Shaplandetal,2007,p4).

AspartoftheCampbellSystematicReviews,Strangetal(2013)conductedameta-analysisofRJ

conferencing(RJC)studiesthatusedface-to-facemeetingsandincludedrandom-assignmentto

controlgroups.Theanalysisconsistedof10studieswithatotalof1,879offendersand734

victims,fromthreecontinents.27Themajorityofthestudies(9)usedconvictedoffenders.They

soughttoreviewtheeffectsonrecidivismandvictimsatisfaction.Forthepurposeofthecurrent

research,greaterattentionisgiventoStrangetal’sfindingsregardingthelatter.Thereviewwas

limitedtotwoconsistentdimensionsofvictimsatisfactionacrossthestudies–materialand

emotionalrestoration;andwasfurtherlimitedbystudiesinwhichtheRJC-assignedvictimsand

control-groupvictimscouldbecompared(essentiallytwoexperiments).Theyfoundthat,less

victimsofRJC(38%)soughtfinancialrestitutioncomparedtothecourtvictim-group(47%)and

27ThethreecontinentsweretheEurope(London,UK),Australia(Canberra)andNorthAmerica(Indianapolis,Indiana).


34

fewervictimsreceiveditinthecourt-group(12%)thantheRJC-group(16%).

Strangetal(2013)highlightdifferencesindynamicswhenvictimsarepresentatconferences,

thanwhentheyarenot.Theystatethatthereisarequirementforvictimstobepresent,citing

qualitativeresearchthathasfoundfarlessemotionalintensityandoffenderremorse,thanin

caseswherepersonalvictimsarepresent.Regardingemotionalreparation,theyreportin-depth

datasuchas–18%ofcourt-assignedvictimscomparedto5%oftheRJC-assignedvictims

believedthattheoffenderwouldreoffendagainstthem.Whenthiswasexaminedbyoffence–

threetimesasmanycourt-assignedvictims(21%)thanRJC-assignedvictims(7%)ofproperty

crimesthoughttheoffenderswouldreoffendagainstthem.Forvictimsofviolence,fivetimesas

manyofthecourt-assignedvictims(11%)thantheRJC-assignedvictims(2%)thoughtthatthe

offenderswouldreoffendagainstthem.90%ofallthevictimswantedanapologyfromthe

offender;72%oftheRJC-assignedvictimscomparedto19%ofthecourt-assignedvictims,said

thatactuallyreceivedanapology(theapologiesforcourt-assignedvictimswerenotgivenas

partofthecourtprocess,butratherasaseparatelynegotiatedoutcome).Instudiesthatlooked

atburglaryandrobbery(intheUK)Strangetalfound–96%ofRJCburglaryvictimsreceivedan

apology,comparedto7%ofcourt-caseburglary-victims.Inrobbery100%oftheRJC-victims

receivedanapology,comparedto14%ofthecourt-assignedvictims.Victims’perceptionsofthe

sincerityoftheapologiestheyreceivedbyoffencetypeyieldedstatisticallysignificantresults.

ForoffencesofviolenceRJC-victimsandcourt-victimsperceivedtheapologyas‘sincere’or

‘somewhatsincere’atratesof58%and11%respectively;forpropertyoffences55%and10%

respectively;forburglary57%and7%respectivelyandforoffencesofrobbery79%and11%

respectively.“Thesefindingsconfirmthatcourtsoftenneglectthenon-materialdimensionsof

victimization,whileRJCismoderatelysuccessfulindeliveringtheemotionalrestorationvictims

seek,andespeciallyinprovidingaforumforthetransactionofapologies.”(Strangetal,2013,

p39).

Offourstudies(conductedinCanberraandLondon)inwhichStrangetalcouldcomparevictims’

anger,whichcouldbetranslatedintovengefuldesires,theyfounddifferencesbasedonthe

offences.Forexample,incasesofburglaryandrobberyintwoLondonexperiments–5%of

control-groupvictimsand0%RJC-assignedvictimssaidthattheywouldharmtheoffenderin

casesofburglary,comparedto14%ofthecontrol-groupvictimsand3%RJC-assignedvictimsin

casesofrobbery.Strangetal(2013)werealsoabletoreportonpost-traumaticstresssymptoms


35

(PTSS)ofthevictimsintheLondonstudiesinvolvingoffencesofburglaryandrobbery.With

testscarriedoutusingtheWeiss&Marmar,1997ImpactofEvents(Revised)Scale,onceafter

disposalofthecase(courtor,court&RJC)andsix-monthslater.TheyreportedthattheRJC-

assignedvictimshadreducedPTSScomparedtothecontrol-assigned(courtonly)victims,

concluding“…itappearslikelyRJChasabeneficialoutcomeforvictimsexperiencingPTSS.”

(Strangetal,2013,p44).

Overall,theresultsindicated(butlackedstatisticalsignificance)thatRJCworkedbetterfor

violentoffencesthanpropertycrimes;andRJCwasmoreappropriateforadult-offendersthan

juvenileoffenders(Strangetal,2013).“IfgovernmentswishtofundRestorativeJusticeatall,

thisevidencesuggeststhatthebestreturnoninvestmentwillbewithviolentcrimes,andalso

withoffendersconvictedafterlongpriorhistoriesofconvictions.”(Strangetal,2013,p48).

Thissectionhasshownthattheprocessworkswellforbothvictimsandoffenders,although

offendersfindmostvaluewhentheirvictimsarepresent.IncomparisontotheCJS,RJprovides

victimswiththeopportunityforemotionalrestoration.Timingaffectsvictims’engagement,with

lesstimeneededafterpropertyoffencesthanviolentoffences.

WhatIsKnownAboutHowRJWorksinPrisons?

“Theleastdevelopedbutpotentiallyoneofthemostvaluableusesofconferencingisin

corrections…Prisonsandtheparolesystemareripeforinnovationbecause,ascurrently

constituted,theydonotwork.“(Wachteletal,2010,p113).

In2003Hagemannwroteaboutaprogrammecalled‘FocusonVictims’thatwasintroducedtoa

prisoninGermany,withoffendersofseriouscrimessuchashomicideandrobbery.“Our

experienceofthisprogrammehasconfirmedourassumptionthattherearethreerelationships

thatmustberestored.”(p228).Thefirstbeingtheoffender’sinternalrelationshipwith

themselvesandwhatHagemannreferredtoastwoconflictingconceptsofthemselvesasan

offenderonone-handanda“normal”personontheother.Thesecondrelationshipbeingthe

socialrelationshipbetweentheoffenderandsociety–essentiallyotherprisoners,prisonstaff,

theoffender’srelativesandfriends.Thethirdrelationshipistherelationshipbetweenthe

offenderandvictim.


36

Whilemaintainingthattheprogrammewasrestorative,afterfive-yearsand150prisoners

participatingnoVOMswereheld,despitethisbeingtheintentionpost-programme.Hagemann’s

assessmentwaslimitedtoconsiderationoftheoffenders;suggestingtheprisonerscouldonly

managetorestorethefirsttworelationships(withselfandsociety).“Butprisonerswhoareable

tocopewiththeiroffendingwillnotbemotivatedtoparticipateinsuchastrenuousprocessas

longastheretributiveaspect–thatis,thesentence–isleftoutoffocus.Suchprogrammesas

theseconductedinprisonsshouldnotbeclassifiedrestorativejusticebecausetheimposed

punishmentformsastructuralimpediment.”(Hagemann,2003,p231).However,subsequent

researchhasdemonstratedsocietal(includingoffendersandvictims)perceptionsofjustice

oftenincludebothretributiveandrestorativeelements(DeMesmaecker,2011).Theabsenceof

victim-participantsmighthavealsocontributed.Hagemannarguesthatwhattheprogramme

highlightedwastheneedformorepervasivepracticestoengagethewholesocietyandprison

community.

Whilesomemayargue,theoretically,thatthepromotionofrestorativepracticesincustodial

settingscouldbetryingtolegitimisepunishment(Guidoni,2003;Immarigen,2004;Armstrong,

2004;citedinBarr,2013)thebenefitstovictimsandoffendersinlightofempiricaldata,atleast

isevident.

Anumberofinternationalstudies,havebeenconductedorreportedon,thathaveinvolved

prisonprogrammestoraisetheprofileofvictimharmandoffenderaccountability,whether

precedingvictim-offendercontactinterventions;aspartofanoverallmomentumtoengender

moreRJorientationwithinprisonsorasstandaloneprogrammes.28Alltheprogrammesinvolve

emphasisonbuildingempathyorsensitivitytovictims’plight(e.g.Barr,2013(NorthernIreland);

Dhamietal,2009(UK);Ellis,2011(Ohio);Hagemann,2003(Germany);Robert&Peters,2003

(Belgium);Suttie,2015(California);Szego&Fellegi,2013(Hungry)).

Inareviewofinterventionsforadult-maleviolentoffenders,Jolliffe&Farrington(2007)found

thatinterventionsemployingempathytrainingresultedinlowereffectsizes,thaninterventions

28VanCamp(2002)suggeststhatthesuccessofRJinprisonswilllikelybedependentonRJbeingadaptedbyotheragenciesoftheCJS(citedinDhamietal,2009).


37

thatdidnot;withtheintendedeffectbeingareductionofgeneralandviolentreoffending.29

AnotherNOMSstudypublishedin2012foundthatstand-alonevictimempathy/awareness

programmesdidnotreducereoffending.However,‘victim-offenderconferencing’wasfoundto

beeffectiveinreducingreoffendingwithvaryinglevelsofriskforviolentoffences,robberyand

acquisitiveoffences.Withoutanysuggestedexplanation,thereportstatedthatvictim-impact

panelswithdrunkdriversdoesnotreduceoffendingandmayevenincreasereconviction

(NOMS,2012).

Szego&Fellegi(2013)conductedActionResearchaspartofapilotprojectontwoprisons(one

juvenile,oneadult)inHungaryimplementingrestorativepractices.Theysoughttousethe

practicestomanage“inmate-inmateconflict”,‘cellconflicts’andrestorationoffamilyrelations

andvictimreparations.Forexample,theyusedfamilygroupconferencingaspreparationfor

permanent,conditionalortemporaryrelease,withtheaimofexploringfears,desiresand

expectationsoftheinmates,inmates’familyandinmates’localcommunity.Theyreportas

preparationfortheproject,eighteen“inmates”participatedinatwo-daySycamoreTree

programme.However,Szego&Fellegi(2013)suggestamorepervasiveuseofrestorative

practiceswithprisonpopulationsbeyondvictim-offendermeetings,andpostulatepositive

benefitsforstaff.Theyfoundthattheuseofrestorativepracticeshadthepotentialtomotivate

staffbeyondthemaintenanceoflawandorder,andsuggestitcanreducestaffburn-out.“…itis

notonlytheprisonconditionsthataffectrestorativemethods,butthetechniquesalsosimilarly

influencetherelationshipofinmatesandthecorrectionaleducationofficers.”(Szego&Fellegi,

2013,p20).

Szego&Fellegi(2013)howeveradvocatefromtheirexperiencethattheissueoffacilitator

impartialityisbestmanagedbythecorrections-facilitatorsnotfacilitatingintheirown

establishments.ThisoptionisextremelylimitedinBermuda,whereHungarywouldhavealarger

Correctionsestate.“Onthebasisofourfindings,theinmateisthemostlikelytobewillingto

accepttherestorativeapproachandcommunicationmethodsifhehasfamilyrelationsbeyond

theprison,actualgoalsafterbecomingreleased,andconsequently,theinmateislessaffected

bytheprocessofprisonization(Winfree,2002,p.214).”(Szego&Fellegi,2013,p19).

29Responsibly,Jolliffe&Farrington(2007)report“Interventionswithviolentoffendersmayworkbetterwithsomeethnicgroupsratherthanothersduetodifferentsocio-economicbackgroundsandcultures.”(p15).


38

Barr(2013)inhisstudyentitled‘PuttingVictimsinPrison’suggested,“…acompellingneed

existstounderstandthedynamicsofpermittingvictimsofcrimea‘voice’insidecustodial

settings.”(p390).HelookedataprisoninNorthernIreland(MagilliganPrison)30withallthe

politicalissuesofthecountry,andsettofindoutifbringingtheessentialrestorativeelementof

givingvictimsavoice,couldencouragemorefavourableperceptionsofproceduralfairnessin

theprisonserviceforvictimsandtheiradvocates’and,ifitcouldincreasetheperceptionsof

legitimacyinsentencesforoffenders.Hefoundbothobjectiveswerepositivelyachieved,

throughVOMandavictimimpactprogramme.

PrisonofficersweretrainedasfacilitatorsofVOMandmediationslargelytookplaceinthe

prisonconferencerooms;orifvictimswereunwillingtoattendtheprison,atvictim-support

offices,policestations,probationofficesorcourtbuildings.TheaimoftheVOMwastoimprove

perceptionsoftheother;decreaselevelsoffearandhelppeoplefeelmoreincontroloftheir

lives.Prisonofficersandvolunteersofvictim-supportagenciesdeliveredtheVictimImpact

programme.Itwasatwelve-weekprogramme,runtwodaysperweek,coveringcrimetopics

suchasassault,hate-crimeandgang-crime(Barr,2013).Thestudyuseda‘multi-method’

design,whichwillbedescribedinconjunctionwiththehypothesistheyappearedtoaddressand

findingsassociatedwiththem.

26victimswereaskedtocompleteaquestionnaireontheirpersonalexperienceandevaluation

ofVOM.Twodimensionsofproceduraljusticewereused–victims’voiceandrespect.Barr

basedthisconceptualizationofproceduraljusticeonWemmer&Cyr’s(2006)postulationthat

victimsexperiencemediationasfairbecauseitofferedthemrecognition(victims’voice)and

respect,31throughtheprocess.FromthisanalysisBarrfound–73%ofthevictimsreported

being‘verysatisfied’withtheVOMprocessasamethodofdealingwiththeircase;77%were

verysatisfiedwiththefinaloutcomeagreements;96.2%feltthattheirvoicehadbeen

recognized;92.3%wereverysatisfiedathavingfeltrespectedandallofthevictimsfeltthatthe

meetinghadbeenbeneficial.Havingavoicewassignificantlycorrelatedwithoutcome

satisfactionandevenmorehighlysignificantwasthecorrelationbetweenvictims’perceptions

ofrespectfromprisonstaffandoutcomesatisfaction.“Thiswouldsuggestthatwhilevictim’s

perceptionsoftheopportunitytoexpressthemselveswereimportanttooutcomesatisfaction,30Amedium-secureadultmaleprison.31Victimsbeingabletoexpressthemselvesachieverecognition,andrespectreferredtotheinterpersonaltreatmentorqualityofinteractionbetweenvictimsandthecriminaljusticeauthorities(Barr,2013).


39

thequalityoftherelationshipwithprisonstaffcontributedequallytotheiroverallassessment.”

(Barr,2013,p401).TheVictimImpactProgrammealsoresultedinpositiveoutcomesonvictims’

viewsofproceduralfairness.

Atotalof31pairsofoffenderswereabletobematchedforindex-offenceandageand

comprisedtheparticipantandcontrol-groups.32TheywereassessedbeforeandaftertheVictim

Impactprogrammeona50-itemLikertscaletypequestionnairetomeasureforanincreased

senseofaccountabilityandgreatersensitivityto‘victim’splight’(Barr,2013).Theparticipant-

groupshowedsignificantpositiveattitudinalchangecomparedtothecontrolgroup,who

showednosignificantdifferencesoverthesametimeframe.Theparticipant-groupshoweda

largesignificanteffectonsensitivityto‘victims’plight’andasignificantmediumeffectin

relationtoaccountability(Barr,2013).

Semi-structuredinterviewswereheldwith10offenderswhocompletedtheVictimImpact

programmeand10victim-supportvolunteersandprisonstaffwhofacilitatedtheprogramme.

“…havingcompletedtheprogramme,offendershadaclearsenseoftheircrimesasharmful

actionsasopposedtolegalwrongs.”(Barr,2013,p406).Regardingthehypothesistestingthat

anincreasedsensitivitytovictims’plightandaccountabilitywouldincreaseoffenders’

perceptionsofthelegitimacyoftheirsubsequentsentence,Barrconcludedthenullhypothesis

false.Thiswasbasedon–offenders’havingasenseoftheirsentenceaslenientincomparison

totheharmcausedbytheiroffencesandthat“Almostalltheoffendersinterviewedbelieved

thatthecontributionandrelationshipsbuiltupwithvolunteershadbeencriticalinencouraging

confidencetotalkopenlyandhonestlyabouttheirfeelings.”(Barr,2013,p407).Theoffenders

expressedrespectforthevolunteerssharingtheirstoriesandofbeingactualvictims.Barr

reportedimprovedunderstandingonthepartoftheoffendersregardingtheregime’sfunction

tochallengeoffendingbehavior.

Barr’sstudyutilizedtwodifferentRJpractices,oneinvolvingthedirectvictimsandanotherthat

utilizedcommunitymembersasfacilitators;andthenassessedtheoffenders’attitudinal

change.BarrarguedthatwhiletheNorthernIrelandPrisonServicesupportedRJ,withnopolicy

itwasreliantonvolunteersandbeingconfidentialit–“…hasnoimpactupontheoffenders

32Offenderswereselectedfromaawaitinglistfortheprogramme,withtheopportunitytoparticipate(duringthetimeofthepilot)giventothosewhowerescheduledtocompletetheprogrammebythattime.


40

progressionsthroughtheregimeorresettlementplanningtargets.Theprocessstandsalone,

unalignedwithanyotherintervention.”(Barr,2013,p390).

ThissectionhasshownthatthereisgoodevidenceRJworkswellinprisonsettings,thatprison

staffcanleadandimplementtheprocessandthatitcanbepositiveforstaffandvisitors.One

widelyusedRJapproachinprisonsistheSycamoreTreeProjectthathasbeenusedinthe

currentstudy.Evidenceofitseffectivenessisdescribedintheresearchbelow.

SycamoreTreeProject(STP)

Feasey&Williams(2009)reportresearchdataontheSycamoreTreeProgramme(STP)33asa

victimawarenessprogramme(basedonRJprinciples)deliveredinoverfiftyprison

establishmentsthroughoutEnglandandWalessince1998.Toassessforchangepreandpost-

programmeparticipation,offenderswererequiredtocompletetheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometric

questionnaire.34Of5007setsofquestionnairestheyfoundofprisoners(adultmale,femaleand

young-offenders)fromallcategoriesofestablishments(high-securitytoremandcentres)an

overallpositiveattitudinalchange(irrespectiveofgender,adult/young-offenders)post-

progarmmeonallmeasuresoftheCRIME-PICSIIscales.35Forexample-“Akeyobjectiveofthe

SycamoreTreeprogrammeistoimprovetheprogrammeparticipant’sattitudetowardsthe

victim(s)oftheiroffendingbehavior.Therefore,theprimaryconcernofthisevaluationprojectis

theanalysisofattitudinalshiftsbetweenpreandpostscoresonthe‘victimempathy’and

‘anticipationofcrimeasworthwhile’scales.”(Feasey&Williams,2009,p8).Referringtotwo

distinctiveaspectsofempathythathavebeensuggested–“…‘cognitiveempathy’referstothe

abilitytorecognizeandunderstandotherperspectives,whilst‘emotional’or‘affective’

empathy,relatestothecapacitytovicariouslyexperiencetheemotionsofothers.…CrimePics

IIprimarilyseekstomeasurechangesincognitiveempathysothatimprovedscoresmight

indicateagreaterawarenessoftheimpactoftheircrimesonvictimsandrecognitionthatthey

areresponsibleforinflictingharmonothers.”(Feasey&Williams,2009,p8).Thefindingsby

typeofinstitutionyieldedinterestingresults.TheCategoryD(low-risk)prisonersshowedthe

lowestlevelsofpro-criminalattitudespost-programmeonallscalesexceptthevictim-empathy

33FurtherdescriptionoftheSTPisprovidedinChapter4.34TheCRIME-PICSIIisexplainedinmoredetailinChapter5.35Anticipationoffutureoffending(A-scale);Generalattitudetowardsoffending(G-scale);Victimempathy(V-scale);Evaluationofcrimeasworthwhile(E-scale)andaProblemInventory(P-scale).


41

(V)scale;onwhichprisonersofremandcentresshowedthegreatestempathyforvictims.“This

mayreflectthetypeofoffencescommittedbythoseheldwithinRemandCentresorthe

‘unsentenced’statusofthoseparticipatingontheprogramme.”(Feasey&Williams,2009,

p10).36However,theremandcentreprisonershadthegreatestlevelofempathypre-

programme,andinactualfacthadthelowestdegreeofshiftpreandpost-programmethan

prisonersofothercategoryprisons.“Giventhatthoseparticipantswithinremandcentres

demonstratetheweakestshiftsinvictimempathy,yetthestrongestontheA-scaleindicates

thattherelationshipbetweenthetwoscalesarenotclear.”(Feasey&Williams,2009,p13).37As

remandprisonerswereincluded,Feasey&Williamsdidnotexplicitlyreportonwhetherornot

theseprisonershadacceptedresponsibilityfortheiroffending(aswouldbeexpectedfor

programmeparticipation).Thedatacouldindicatethatremandprisonershavelessempathic

regardfortheir‘allegedvictims’,thantheirdesiretoavoidasimilarpredicamentinthefuture

while‘anticipating’aconvictionorsentence.Feasey&Williamsdonotconsiderthispossible

explanation(especiallyinlightofthefactthattheSTPisnotafullRJinterventionwithdirect

victims),ratherevaluatingtheCRIME-PICSIItooloverevaluationoftheprogramme.Theydo

recognizethatintheirevaluationoftheprogrammetherewasnoavailabledataonstatic(i.e.

age,previousconvictions,indexoffence,sentencelengthandethnicity)ordynamicfactors(such

assubstanceabuseandfamilialrelationships).“Furtherevaluationoftheprogrammewouldbe

enhancedbyaccessingprofileinformationtoinformuponoffencerelatedneedsandrisk

levels.”(Feasey&Williams,2009,p17).

Whatcouldbehavebeenhighlyrelevanttothisthesisifrecidivismwereanintendedoutcome,

wouldbethefindingsoftheMOJ(2013b)regardingSTP.TheMOJconductedanevaluationof

theSycamoreTreeprogramme(STP)onre-offending.Of192offendersfromfiveprisons

matchedonanumberofcharacteristics38forvariousoffences39during2005-2008,therewas

36TheyalsofoundthattheSTPhadamarginallygreaterimpactonyoung-offendersthanadultsfortheVandAscales(victimempathyandanticipationoffutureoffendingrespectively)andmarginallygreaterforfemalesthanmales.MaleshadamarginallyhigherpositiveshiftthanfemalesontheA-scale.37Ifthescaleswerenotmeasuringdifferentattitudesthentherewouldbenoneedfordifferentscales.Feasey&Williams’(2009)statementsuggeststhatimprovementinoneattitudeshouldcreateimprovementintheotherattitudes/scales.38Thecharacteristicsoftheoffendersintheanalysisincludedethnicity,nationality,genderandage(attimeofindexoffenceandatfirstcontactwiththeCJS).Aswellasindexoffence,lengthofsentence,


42

onlya2%differencebetweentheSTPtreatmentgroupandthecontrolgrouponaone-year

follow-upofreoffendingpost-release.Thisfindingwasnotstatisticallysignificant,indicatingthat

theSTPhadnorealimpactinreducingre-offending.Areductionofrecidivismisoften

consideredaprimaryaimofRJ;thisauthordisagreeswiththisperspective,rathersharingthe

viewofWachteletal(2010)that“Evenifre-offenseratesdonotdecline,thevaluetovictims

whowanttofaceoffendersisreasonenough.Wehavetokeepremindingourselvesthat

conferencingis,firstandforemost,aservicethatwecanoffertovictims.”(p116).

WhatFurtherEvidenceistherethatRJImprovesVictimEmpathy?

RJprincipleshavebeenusedtodealwithanarrayofissuesanddisputesinanequalarrayof

contexts,suchasschoolandworkplacebullying.Whilstnotthefocusofthecurrentthesissome

evidenceandresearchwillbecoveredwhileintroducingthehumancapacityforempathy.

Strangetal(2013)concludedfromtheirreviewofRJCthat“Onewaytointerprettheresults

reported…istosaythattheeffectsofRJConseriousorfrequentoffenderswastomakethem

hurtpeopleless.Thatisjustwhattheempathy-basedtheoryofsharedvaluesemergingfrom

effectiveinteractionrituals(Collins,2004,Rossner,2013)wouldpredict.”(p48).

Recentresearchispointingtothediscoveryofneurogenesisoftheamygdalathathasbeen

associatedwithempathy(Reisel,2014).Zaki(2011)referstoastudybyKonrathintheUSof

over1,300studentsthatshowedadeclineinself-reportedempathy(usingtheInterpersonal

ReactivityIndex)overathirty-yearperiod.“Konrathcitestheincreaseinsocialisolation,which

hascoincidedwiththedropinempathy.Inthepast30yearsAmericanshavebecomemore

likelytolivealoneandlesslikelytojoingroups…Severalstudieshintthatthistypeofisolation

cantakeatollonpeople’sattitudestowardothers.”(Zaki,2011).Thesuggestionthatwhen

peoplearemoresociallyintegratedwithotherstheyaremoreopenintheirinteractionswith

others,alsospeakstoBolivar’s(2013)findingofRJparticipants’perceptionofsocialsupportand

‘ideology’.Convergingdisciplinesprovideevidencethatthehumanabilitytoempathizecanbe

employmentandbenefithistoryandcriminalhistory(e.g.previous-convictions,custodialsentencesandcourtorders).39Offenceswereviolence(includingrobbery),burglary,theftandhandling,fraudandforgery,motoringoffences,criminaldamage,drugsandan‘other’categorywhichwasnotspecified.


43

enhancedorreversely,erodedasaresultoftheenvironment.Orasithasbeendescribed–with

thebeginningsofhumanlife,empathyis“soft-wired”anddependentonearlyattachmentsand

experiencesitcanbecome“hard-wired“.40“Thefactthatempathyisdecliningmeansthat

there’smorefluiditytoitthanpreviouslythought…Itmeansthatempathycanchange.Itcan

goup.”(Konrath,quotedinZaki,2011).Ithaslongbeenknownthatoffendershaveoftenbeen

traumatizedbylifeexperiences,suchasviolentoffendershavingbeenexposedtoviolenceor

neglectduringtheirformativeyearsofdevelopment.Moreover,institutionssuchasprisonsare

furtheroppressiveenvironments,isolatingbydesign.

ModelsandFurtherGuidance

InUmbreit’s2000publicationRestorativeJusticeConferencing:GuidelinesforVictimSensitive

Practice:AdaptingConferences,Mediations,CirclesandReparationBoardstoPeople,

Communities,andCulturesheprovidesguidanceforassessingandfacilitatingconferences(using

thetermRJCquiteglobally).Heoutlinesfourkeyelements,underwhich,otherguidelineswill

besuccinctlypresentedinthischapter.

1) “Allthosedirectlyaffectedbythecrimeareencouragedtoparticipate.”(p2)

SafetyasafundamentalprincipleofRJmeansthattheparticipantsshouldfeelsafe,andif

thisisevercompromised,thefacilitatorshouldactimmediatelytoprovideoptions,

terminateaconferenceandprovideanescortforthevictimtoleave.Conferencesshouldbe

conductedinlocationsthataresafeforthevictim,alsoaidedbytheaccompanimentof

supporters.Umbreitsuggeststhatvictimshaveasayinthearrangementoftheroomand

seatingofparticipantsasawayofreassuringthem;orattheveryleast,theirwishesbe

givenseriousconsideration.Otherssuggestfacilitatorsplantheseating(e.g.Wachteletal,

2010).Umbreitsuggeststhattheoffender’sfeelingofsafetyisalsoimportantandthatthis

iswhytheyshouldnotfeelcoerced.Facilitatorsshouldactivelylistentothestoriesofboth

victimsandoffenders,andbemindfuloftheiruseoflanguage,avoidingwordsthat

prescribepressure,suchasforgivenessandreconciliation.Umbreitpointstovictim’srights’

40Softandhard-wringaretermsusedbyJeremyRifkinTheEmpathicCivilisation.Availableforviewingathttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g


44

asusefulinformationthatcanbegiventovictims,aswellasotherresourcesandmaking

referralsifrequested.

2) “Thevictimandoffenderchoosewhich,ifany,familymembersorsupportpersonsare

present.”(p2)

Bothvictimsandoffendersshouldhavetheoptiontobeaccompaniedbyfamilyandfriends.

Ascommunitiesofcareandsupport,theseindividualsmayassisttheoffenderintheir

completionoftheagreementortheymayhavealsobeenimpactedbytheoffence.

3) “Theprocessofconferencing/dialogueisadaptedtotheexpressedneedsofthevictim

andoffender.”(p2)

Facilitatorsareguidedtoprovidechoicesandoptionstovictimsthatcancontributetothem

feelingempowered,andfurthertotheirhealing.Thisisveryimportantifthevictimsfeel

disempoweredbytheCJSorhavefeelingsofvictimization.Victimsshouldbegiventhe

optionofwhetherornottospeakfirst–“Insomecases,ajudgmentcallmayberequiredby

themediator/facilitatorastowhoshouldspeakfirst,basedontheage,needsand

communicationstylesoftheparties.…Creatingasafeplacewherebothpartiesfeel

comfortableenoughtoengageinagenuinedialoguetotheextentoftheirabilityis

ultimatelythemostimportantprinciple,regardlessofwhospeaksfirst.”(Umbreit,2000,

p18).Asidefromanylegallimitations,victimsshouldhavetherighttoseekwhateverkind

ofrestitutionmeetstheirneeds,howeverthefinalagreementisbasedontheoffender’s

willingnessandabilitytomeetthoseneeds.

4) “Alloftheprimarypartiesarethoroughlypreparedthroughin-personmeetingspriorto

ajointconference.”(p2)

Victimsandoffendersshouldbeprovidedwithaccurateinformationandsupporttomake

informeddecisionsaboutparticipationwithouttimeconstraints–includingadescriptionof

theRJCprocess;researchfindingsonparticipantsatisfaction;encouragingconsiderationof

possiblerisksandbenefitsandstructuringrealisticexpectations.Thatparticipationisbased

on‘informedconsent’.AsdescribedbyDeMesmaeckerabove(2013),informedconsent

involvesparticipantsbeingadvisedthattheycanterminatetheconferenceatanytime.

Umbreiturgesfacilitatorstomeetwithoffendersfirst,soastoavoidanypotentialfeelings


45

ofre-victimization,ifthevictimisseenfirstandthentheoffenderrefuses.Thefacilitators

shouldseekconsentbeforesharinganyinformationbetweentheparties.Umbreitsuggests

schedulingprioritybebasedonconvenienceforthevictim-fortheactualconferenceand

forpre-conferenceface-to-facemeetings.

Theguidanceprovidedaboveisnotanexhaustivelistandfurtherguidanceisillustratedwithin

chapters4and5.Umbreit(2000)encouragespractitionerstode-emphasizeprogrammemodels

overmeetingtheneedsofthemainstakeholders.Heurgespractitionersto“Remember,the

centralissueishowtocreateasafeplaceforpeopletoengageinagenuinedialoguebasedon

theirneeds,nottheneedsoftheprogramadvocates.”(p4)Hesuggeststhataseachcaseis

unique,amulti-methodapproachwouldlikelybemoreappropriate,basedonthestrengthsand

limitationsofeachpractice(e.g.VOMorFGC)orsuchasaone-to-onemeetingorasmall

conferenceaheadofalargerconference.

Theinternationalempiricalresearchpresentedinthechapterpointsoutanumberof

considerations,notleastculturaldifferences.ItwouldappearthathowpeopleviewtheCJScan

influencetheirparticipationandsatisfactionwithRJ,aswellsashowRJparticipationcan

influenceopinionsoftheCJS.YetthesuccessofRJinprisonswilllikelybedependentonthe

supportoftheCJS,aswellasthepublic,victims,prisoners,prisonstaffandadministration.

Theresearchreviewedsuggeststhatparticipantsbeprovidedwithsufficientinformationabout

allstagesoftheprocesstoinformconsenttoensurevoluntaryparticipation.Ithashighlighted

thepotentialimpactofcriminaljusticeagentsasfacilitatorsonparticipants’perceptionsof

confidentiality,andimpartialitywiththeuseofconferencingscripts.Theapproachusedtomake

initialcontactislessofanissuethanface-to-facemeetingswithparticipantsafterinitialcontact.

GuidancestressestheissueofsafetyandadherencetotheprinciplesofRJ.Considerationisalso

giventoevidenceregardingstand-alonevictimempathyprogrammesonrecidivism,and

evidenceofRJbeingmosteffectivewithviolentoffencesoverpropertycrimes.

TheUN(2006)highlightscautionwithvictim-participantsinsmallcommunities“Thereisarisk,

particularlywithinsmallcommunitieswithcloserelationshipsbetweenindividuals,thatsome

victimsmaybepressuredintoparticipatinginaprocesswithwhichtheydonotreallyagree.”

(p66).Ithasalsobeenreportedthatevidenceofsmallhomogeneouscommunitiescanincrease


46

theriskofflightbyadolescentsfromthecommunity(Marshall,1998,inMenkel-Meadow,

2007).

ChaptersoneandtwosoughttodescribeRJtheoriesandcoreprinciples,presentempirical

research,someguidelinesandstandardsofpractice,andpointedtohowtheliterature

influencedthecurrentresearch.ItendedwithacautionarynotefromtheUnitedNations

regardinguseofRJinsmallcommunities,ofwhichBermudawouldconstitute.Thefollowing

chapterdescribesthecontextinwhichtheresearchwasconducted,focusingonthecultural

climateandcrimeinBermuda.


47

v CHAPTER3-BERMUDAINCONTEXT:CRIME&theCRIMINALJUSTICESYSTEM

“Althoughlockedfacilitiesmustbepartofanypublicsafety,safecommunitiesrequiremorethanincapacitation.”(Umbreit,2000,p2)

WhenonereadsareportontheCJSinBermuda(Tumimetal,1992),writtenalmostaquarterof

acenturyago,aspectsofit,andevenearlierreportsscreamforaRJresponse,withcomments

andstatementssuchas–

“Itisasystem:-whichusespunishment,ratherthansocialintervention,particularlyfinancialandcustodialpunishment,asaprimaryresponsetoawiderangeofsocialbehaviour…”(p43)“Thetaskssetbeforethecriminaljusticesystembythecitizensandgovernmentarenoteasyones.Toaccomplishtheprotectionofcitizensandassurejustice,allpartsofthesystem,includingthecitizens,mustformallyworktogetherandshareresponsibilityfortheultimateoutcome.”(ReportoftheBermudaAssociationofHelpingProfessionsCommitteeonPrisonsandSentencing,1983;citedinTumimetal,1992,p47).“ManyofourrespondentsemphasizedthatthecriminaljusticesysteminBermudawasinsufficientlysensitivetotherealneedsofthosewhobecameinvolvedwithit.”(p55).ThischapterfocusesonBermuda,itshistoryandtherelevanceofthistocrimeandtheCJS,to

meetanobjectiveoftheresearch–todescribethecontextofcrimeandcultureinBermuda.

Thechapterprovidesasynopsisofthediscoveryandbeginningsoftheisland,andthenofthe

historicalsocialandpoliticalclimate.Therelevanceofthisbeing,thatsometheoristsargueRJis

insufficientinchallengingsystemicinequities.FocusisthenplacedoncrimeandtheCJS;

includingtheintendedtransitionfromcustodytocorrectionsandinclusionofAlternativesto

Incarceration(ATI).Issuesarebroughtuptodate,bysharingthedemographicsofthe21st

Centuryincarceratedpopulation,andendingwithabriefreviewonthedistinctionbetweenRJ

andrehabilitation.

Bermudaisabeautifulpicturesqueclusterofislands,mostuninhabited;thoseinhabitedare

largelyconnectedbybridgesofallsizesandeachunique41.Itbaressoftsandybeachesandbays

thatareaccommodatingofmanyandsomeintimatelysecluded.Therearevantagepointsthat

41SomersetBridgehasareputationforbeingthesmallestworkingdrawbridgeintheworld.


48

actassummitsdisplayingbreathtakingviews.Allwhovisitwitnessthis.Theresearcherheard

countlesstimesfromcruiseshiptouristsasshewouldexitthecorrectionalfacility,howthey

couldnotbelievesuchaparadisewouldhaveneedforaprison.

OftenmistakenforbeingpartoftheCaribbean,Bermudaissub-tropical900milesnorthofthe

Caribbean.LocatedintheNorthAtlanticOcean,itisapproximately21sqmileswithanestimated

populationof68,00042(Lawrence&Codrington,2014).

DiscoveryandBeginnings

ItisreportedthattheislandswerefirstdiscoveredbyaSpanishCaptain–JuandesBermudezin

1505(Packwood,2012)andwhomtheislandseventuallycametobenamedafter.Settlement

ontheislandwasaccidental,whenon29thJuly1609aship(SeaVenture)destinedforVirginia

withsettlersfromtheUKgotwreckedontheeastsideofBermuda.TheSeaVenture’s150crew

andsettlersincludedSirGeorgeSomers,ledtotheislandfirstbeingcalledSomersIslesandits

firstinhabitants.Whenallbutthree,thatremainedbehind,continuedontoVirginiainMayof

thefollowingyear(1610)furthersettlersdidnotarriveagainuntilJuly1612.

Theislandisdividedintonineparishes–Devonshire,Hamilton,Paget,Pembroke,Sandy’s,

Smiths,Southampton,StGeorgesandWarwick.43Fromthesettlementof1612,Bermudawas

claimedasaBritishcolonyandistheoldestself-governingUKoverseasterritory.

HistoryandColonisation

AtthefirstinhabitanceofBermuda,hogswerefound.Thefirstsettlerstriedtogrowvarious

crops(potatoes,onions,melonsandcottontonameafew)andsourcepearls(Packwood,2012).

BlackandIndianindenturedservantswereimportedfortheirskillsintheseareas,withthe

earliestrecordingofaBlackandIndianpersonbeingin1616(Smith,2006).Thenstillearlyinits

history,enslavedBlackandIndianpeoplewerebroughttotheislandforthepurposeof

42The2010Censusreportedthepopulationas64,237–availableathttp://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/sources/census/2010_phc/bermuda/Bermuda_new.pdf43AlloftheparishesarenamedafterBritishnoblemen,directlye.g.JamesHamiltonorbasedontheterritorytheyruledasEarlse.g.RobertRichEarlofWarwick.


49

agricultureandtoensurethesuccessoftheyoungcolony.In1617slaverywasalsousedasa

formofpunishment(Smith,2006).

Packwood(2012)dedicatesachapterinhisbooktotheearly‘CrimeandPunishment’ofthe

enslaved,obtainedfromtheCaribbean,CentralAmericaandpirateships.Heprovidesexamples

ofcrime(e.g.theft,fornication,rebellion)and,iffoundguilty,thepenaltieswhichcouldinclude

lashes,hanging,thelossoflimbsandbanishment.44Smith(2006)providesexamplesof

‘transportation’asaformofpunishmentforcrimes(exceptmurder)wherebyanoffendercould

betransportedtoanothercountry,nottoreturnforaperiodoftimeorforlife.45Packwoodalso

highlightsActsthatcameintoforce–“By1622,Bermuda’spopulationwasabout1,200.The

followingyear,blackswerenumerousenoughtomeritaspecialAct(12)inthetransactionsof

theSecondAssembly,entitled“AnActtorestraintheinsolenciesofthenegroes.””(p25).Slave

owners,inexecutingpunishmenttotheirslaveswereprotectedbylaw,iftheirslavewere

“accidentally”killedasaresult.

AnotherlawPackwood(2012)highlightsistheAct“againsttheillkeepingoftheferry”(p25).

Beforebridgeswerebuilt,travelbetweentheislandswasbyboat.Theferryconnection

betweenConeyIslandtoBailey’sBayandStGeorge’sdidnotoperateonSundays;blackslaves

wereusingboatstoprovidethisservice.However,thiswouldmeanthatslavescouldaccrue

money.Packwoodsharesthatsuchactivitywouldbeconsideredextortionandtherowercould

bewhippedaspunishmentiffoundperformingthisservice.Transportationwouldbecomean

issueagaininthefuture.

Bythelate17thCenturytherewasnotenoughemploymentforthenumberofslavesonthe

island,solawswerepassedtolimitimportationofslaves.Astheslaveshadbecomeexpertin

tradesandwereinexpensive,manywhitepeopleweresaidtohaveleftBermuda.In1701a

petitionwassenttoEnglandrequesting500blackslavesbeshippedtotheBahamas,sothat

whiteBermudianscouldreturntotakeupemployment(Smith,2006).

44Whenresearchingthepunishmentofslaves,theresearcherwasremindedofcommentsthatsuggestedBermudianoffendersshouldbesenttoplaceslikeJamaicaorTrinidad;however,notfromthosewhohadparticipatedintheinitiative.45Thisformofpunishmentcameintoeffectwiththe1827Actto“AmelioratetheConditionoftheSlavesandTheFreePeopleofColour”(Smith,2006;p33).


50

Intheearly1820’sconvictsbegantoarriveinBermudafromtheUK,46followedbyothersup

until1863“…whenthesystemofoverseaspenallabourwasdiscountedbyGreatBritain.”

(Smith,2006,p25).Over9,000convictswerebroughttoBermuda,andafterthosethatdied

fromillhealth,thoseremainingwereforcedtoleave.

Interestingly,theBritishSlaveTradeendedin1807;notuntil30thJuly1827didtheBermudian

Assemblyfollowsuitpassing“AnActtoAmelioratetheConditionofSlavesandFreePersonsof

Colour.”(Smith,2006).Itbecamelawfulforslavesora‘personofcolour’topayforthefreedom

ofothersenslaved,likewivesandchildren.Italsobecamelawfulforslavestoownproperty,but

theyremainedsegregatedinchurch.Slavescouldgivetestimonyincourtagainstotherslaves

and‘freepeopleofcolour’butonlyifprovidedwithacertificateofgoodcharacterfromtheir

parishvestry;theChiefJusticechallengedthisin1828.

1stAugust1834broughttheEmancipationActschedulingabolitionofslavery“…throughout

GreatBritain’scolonialpossessions…andprovidedforasystemofapprenticeship…designedto

provideatransitionperiod”forthecoloniestoachieveafreelabourforce(Smith,2006,p35).

TheBritishGovernmentgavecompensationtoslaveownersofthecolonies,providingaportion

of£20milliontobepaidtothoseinBermuda,whoweretoreceivethelowestportionofallthe

colonies(Smith,2006).Alawpresumablyconsideredinhumanewasoverturned;yettherewasa

needtofinanciallycompensatethosewhohadownedenslavedhumansasproperty.Itcouldbe

arguedthatthisisRJinverted,wherebyreparationsaremadetothewrongdoeroroffender,

whetherornotpreviouslylaw-abidingpriortoemancipation.Itcertainlyspeakstohowlawsof

thelandcanbecomeoutdatedandarguablyhowlawscanelucidateasimmoral.

Emancipatedblackpeoplewerestillburdenedanddisadvantaged,asituationfurthersustained

bythe“…politicalimpotenceinducedbylegislation…”(Smith,2006,p51).ThePembrokeYoung

Men’sFriendlyInstitutefoundedinSeptember1832andTheStGeorge’sFriendlyUnion

foundedinJanuary1834,weretwopioneeringblacklodgeshailedbySmith(2006),as

organizationsthatsupportednewlyfreedblack‘citizens’.Therewerereportedly1200freeblack

46300peoplemadeupthefirstgroupofconvicts(Smith,2006).


51

peoplelivinginBermudajustbeforeemancipation;theblackpopulationwasreportedtohave

reducedby1835andthereasonforthisbeingemigration(Smith,2006).

Employmentforallwasanissue,especiallyforsailors,howeverby1851theoncerejected

agriculturalindustrywouldproduceenoughonionsandpotatoesforexportation(Smith,2006).

PortugueseagriculturallabourerswerealsobroughttoBermudainthelate1840’s.WithNew

YorksteamboatscomingtoBermudaforproduce,Smithhighlightsthebeginningsofthetourist

industryinthesecondhalfofthe19thCentury.Asthedemandincreased,hotelsand

guesthousesstartedtobebuilt.EscapingthewinterUSseasons,theBermudatouristhigh

seasonwastheChristmastoEasterperiod,andastimewenton,thetourismseasongrewinto

thesummermonths(Smith,2006).

Asatraditiontothecurrentday,Smith(2006)suggeststhattheGombey’slikelyemergedinthe

early19thCenturyaspartoftheblackpopulation’sholidaycelebrations.NamedafteranAfrican

rusticdrumcalled‘Gumba’,Gombey’sarecolourfully,dresseddancers.AnothertraditionSmith

(2006)reportsonisCupMatch.Itsoriginsaretracedbackto1901whenblackBermudiansatan

anniversarypicnicofemancipation,tookpartinacricketmatch.Thetwoteamsdrawnfromthe

eastandwestdivisionsoftheOddfellowsLodge,agreedafriendlyrematchthefollowingyear

(1902).Thetraditioncontinuestodaywithanofficialtwo-daypublicholidayaccommodatingthe

two-daycricketevent.

Beforeemancipation,fearsregardingtheeducationofslaveswereboreoutofthebeliefthatto

provideeducationwouldcreateastateofrebellion;aswellasotherprejudices.Smith(2006)

arguesthatthesameissueswererelatedtothedisseminationofreligion,albeittherewere

instancesfromacrossBermudianhistory,whereslaveswereexposedtoreligiousinstruction.47

ManyChristiansritesweredeniedtheslavepopulation,hencemarriagebetweenslaves

involvedjumpingthebroom;theywereallottedseparateburialgroundsandassigned

segregatedseatinginthechurch(Smith,2006).“ThechurchofEnglandnotonlymaintained

segregatedseatingfacilitiesuntilthemid1960’sbutalsohadseparatechurchorganisations.”

(Manning,1973;citedinSmith,2006;p61).

47MethodistmissionarieslikeJohnStephensonin1977andJoshuaMarsdenin1808contributedgospelpreachingamongsttheblackpopulation(Smith,2006).


52

AdayschoolinStGeorge’swasbuiltin1811forblackchildren.48TheMethodistscontinuedwith

theirpromotionofeducationandby1832establishednineschoolsemployingbothblackand

whiteteacherstowhite,‘freecoloured’andblackenslavedchildren(Smith,2006).

Atthistimewiththeemancipationfastapproaching,educationandreligionwerelikelyseenasa

wayoftemperingtheperceivedpotentiallyvolatilebehaviourofthosewhohadbeenenslaved.

Thisperspective,arguablyinlinewithhowsomeoffendersviewrehabilitation.

“…Emancipationandracialequalitywerenotsynonymous.”(Smith,2006,p63).

InBermuda’s350thAnniversaryyear,boycottingoftheisland’ssegregatedcinemastookplace.

June15th1959(125yearsaftertheEmancipationAct)sawthestartofblackBermudiansand

someradicalwhiteBermudiansstandingupagainstsegregation.Boycottingcausedtemporary

closures.OnJuly2ndthetheatresreopenedwithoutsegregation;desegregationalsooccurredin

churches,hotelsandrestaurants(Jones,2004).

TheLegacyontheCriminalJusticeSystem

CivildisordersdeclaringStatesofEmergencyoccurredinBermudain1968and197749thatwere

foundtobethedirectresultofresentmentslargelybetweenyoungblackmalesandthepolice,

embeddedinthehistoryofBermuda’ssociety(Woodingetal,1969).Insummarythisreferred

totheracialinequitiesofthesociety,despitetheendofsegregationandnationaleconomic

development–“…rootedinthehistoryofBermudiansocietycharacterizedbywhite

supremacy…”(Pittetal,1977;p3).

Thestartofthe1968disordersoccurredonthe25thApril,50whencitizensattendingtheannual

‘FairForAll’eventinHamilton,perceivedpoliceactionsasracialfavoritism;essentially

48TheschoolsareaccreditedtotheworkoftheAnglicanArchdeacon-thenBishopAubreySpencer(Smith,2006).49WoodingetalledtheCommissionofInquiryteamforthe1968disordersandPittetaltheRoyalCommissionforthe1977disorders.50ItisnotconsideredcoincidentalthatthedisordersstartedinthesamemonththatthecivilrightsleaderMartinLutherKingwasassassinated(4thApril1968)intheUS(Jones,2004).


53

admittingwhiteindividualsandbarringblackindividuals.Thiswasfollowedbyapoliceofficer

beingassaultedashetriedtoarrestayoungblackmanandotherincidentsfurtherfuelledthe

spontaneousdisorder.Thereportontheincidentsdeterminedthatthecontinueddisordersfor

thefollowingtwodays(26th&27thApril)weremoreplanned,asaresultoflongheldgrievances.

Racialconflict,jobopportunities,an‘artificialsociety’,drinkanddrugs,andthe1968Election

campaignwereconsideredtobethebasiccausesofthedisorders.Whileissuesofprovocation,

auxiliarycycles,drugsandageneraldissatisfactionwiththepolicewereconsideredthe

immediatecauses(Woodingetal,1969).

RacialConflict

Inthereport,Woodingetal(1969)pointedoutlawsenactedin1963thatwereconsideredto

havehadaninfluenceonthestateofaffairsinBermuda.AsallBermudians,includingthe

previouslyexcludedblackBermudians,hadbecomeeligibletovote,thevotingagehadbeen

liftedto25yearsfrom21yearsofage51.TheProhibitedPublicationsAct,PublicOrderActand

EmergencyPowersActhadcomeintoforce.Atthesametime,theProgressiveLabourParty

(PLP)hadbeenformed.Theparty,accordingtoWooding,campaignedforaunitedBermudabut

wasquicklylabeledasracist.Attentiontothesemattersweredrawn,toevidencehowthemove

towardsanintegratedBermudahadbegunbutwasnotmovingatthepaceyoungblack

Bermudianswouldhavelikedandwasnotunhindered.Leadingtothestatementthat“…

althoughthereistokenintegrationitismerelylip-service.”(Woodingetal,1969;p70).

JobOpportunities

Discriminationprevailed,asexampleswereevidencedintheareaofjobopportunitiesabove

certainlevels.Forexampleitwasreportedascommonplaceforvacanciesthatcouldbefilled

promotionallybyblackworkersbecomingredundant,tolaterbeadvertisedasanewpost

redesignedtargetingwhites,butessentiallythesameastheredundantpost.BlackBermudians

largelyoccupiedmanualandmenialjobs,whichimpactedtheirlackofmotivationtoremainin

educationbeyondthecompulsoryyears.“SothegeneralityofblackBermudianswere

conditionedtoacceptintheBermudianeconomyawhollyinferiorplace.“(Woodingetal,1969;

p74).Simultaneously,policemen,teachers,accountantsandexecutivesinbusinesswerebeing

51Thelegalvotingagewasrevertedbackto21yearsin1965(Woodingetal,1969).


54

recruitedfromoverseas.Atthetimeofthe1968Disorders,thepoliceforcewaspredominately

whiteandexpatriate.Woodingetal(1969)reported65%wereEnglishmen,someofwhohad

previouslyservedinNigeria,EastAfricaandCyprus.

AnArtificialSociety

Woodingetal(1969)suggestedtheholidaylifeofBermudaduetoitsrelianceontourismalso

playedapartintheunderlying/maincausesofthedisorders.Hereferstotheideaof‘keeping

upwiththeJoneses’toexplainthetoilonfamilies.However,theJoneseswerenotneighbours

but‘affluentvisitors’.HearguedthatthecostoflivinginBermudawasexpensive(andstillis)

consequentlyresidents-andparentswidelyheldtwotothreejobsleadingtochildrenlacking

parentalattention.Woodingetal(1969)suggestedthatthisledtochildrentakingtothestreets

and“Thedrifttosodoingisallthegreaterintheovercrowdedhouseholds.”(p77).Heimplied

thedevelopmentofsubculturesinthe“CourtStreetboys”andamongthemBlackMuslimsand

BlackPowermilitants.WoodingetalemphasestheyoungblackmeninHamiltonandthe‘back

oftown’areasashavingbeeninhighnumbersduringthenightofthedisorders.Thehighlevels

ofpolicescrutinyin‘backoftown’,trafficlawsandpoliceattitudestowardstheyoungwas

foundtobeofrelevance.

AlthoughWoodingetal(1969)didnotconsiderthetermsofreferenceasgivingauthorityto

prescribelegislativepolicyforBermuda,thisdidnotstopthereportdrawingattentiontothe

lawsgoverningauxiliarycycleuse;policestopandsearchpowers;theprohibitionofpublications

andlawsgoverningresponsestojuvenileoffending.

In1977,Bermudawasmarkedagainbydisorderswithunderlyingcausesthatdidnotdiffer

drasticallyfromthoseofthe1968disturbances.DisorderstriggeredonDecember1stthroughto

the3rdweresparkedbywhatcouldbedescribedasthegovernmentsdisregardofthepublic

opinionofalargesectionoftheblackpopulation.Pittetal’s(1977)reportprovidesclaritytothe

confusionthatlikelyexistedformany.Moreover,thereportprovidesinformationthatmany

mayhavebeenobliviousto;eitherwaytheconsequencesweredetermined,theblack


55

communityfeltfurthermarginalizedandoppressed;andinPittetal’s(1977)conclusionhe

urgedBermudatoseekindependence.52

Theimmediatecauseofthedisorderswasidentifiedasthepublic’sreactionstotheexecutionof

twoblackBermudianmen,foundguiltyofmurder.On6thJuly1976,ErskineBurrowswasfound

guiltyandsentencedtodeath,forthemurderofthePoliceCommissionerin1972andthefatal

shootingoftheGovernorandhisADCinMarch1973.On18thNovember1976,ErskineBurrows

andLarryTacklyn53werebothfoundguiltyofthemurderoftwoshopkeepers(shotApril1973)

andsentencedtodeath.Withthetwofatalshootingsin1973,aten-dayamnestywascalledfor

thesurrenderingoflicensedandunlicensedfirearmsinBermuda.Atotalof1,440gunswere

surrendered(Jones,2004).

Early1977therewasapublicprotestagainstcapitalpunishment,fromwhichthings“…

escalateddramaticallyfollowingtheannouncementofthedateforthehangings.”(Pittetal,

1977;p4).ApetitionfromclemencyfromtheUKwasdenied,alongwithcourtappealsfor

Tacklyn.Thereareanumberofconspiracytheories,tothisdayaboutwhythedecisionto

executewasupheld.However,themenwereexecutedon2ndDecember1977;priortothatthe

deathpenaltyhadnotbeenusedinBermudasince1943(Pittetal,1977).

Pittetal’s(1977)reportidentifiedsixlong-termcontributoryfactorsthatwerebelievedto

underliethespecialcharacteristicsofBermudain1977–acolonialsociety;theimpactofpast

racialsegregation;aparticularpatternofcapitalaccumulation;aselectivetouristmarket;a

distinctivetaxationstructureandeconomicgrowthdependentonimportedlabour.Theseare

explainedbriefly,toputPittetal’sreportincontext-asasmallsociety,Pittetaldescribedthe

peopleofBermuda,ashavingdevelopedtraitsof“dependencycomplex”,whereintherewasa

tendencytoplaceresponsibilityforthecountrywiththeBritishGovernment.Regardingthe

segregatedpast–“…whitepeoplerarelyunderstandhowdeepthewoundsofdiscrimination

canstrikeintoanindividual’spersonality.Thesewoundscontinuetobleedinthevictim’sheart

52“WerecognizethatwhereasmanyblackBermudiansseeindependenceasthefinalstepinaprocessofemancipation,thisargumenthaslittleappealtowhiteBermudians,fortheyseethemselvesasalreadyemancipated.”(Pittetal,1977;p36).53TacklynwasneverchargedforthemurderofthePoliceCommissionerandacquittedforthemurderoftheGovernorandhisADC.


56

longafterthepersonresponsiblehasforgottenthem.”(Pittetal,1977;p7).54Ofpertinenceto

thecurrentresearchisPittetalnamingblackpeopleasvictimsofthesociety’shistory,and

implyingpersistentandpervasivevictimization.Capitalaccumulationreferredtohowthewhite

populationwasinabetterstartingpositiontotakeadvantageofopportunitiescreatedby

changesintheUSmarketthathadaknock-oneffect.Thisincludedthepurchaseoflandin

Bermuda–“Landwasbroughtfromblacksatpriceswhichmayhaveseemedreasonableatthe

timebuthavesubsequentlyproventohavebeenbargainpricesforthepurchasersandthisstill

evokesresentmentamongblacks.”(Pittetal,1977;p7).Selectivetourismwasaboutthe

industryhavingbeenpredominantlywhite,andhowinthemid-1950sonlyonehotelallowed

Jewishguests.Pittetalreferstothisfullyextendingthesocialgapbetweenthetouristsandthe

blackBermudianswhoservedthem.Ironically,theburdenoftaxationwasplacedlargelyon

tourism.Withnoincometaxation,Pittetalarguedcouplestookfulladvantageofearninghigh,

withouttaxationandthisinturnfuelledtheexpectationofahighstandardofliving.Thefurther

consequenceofthelatter,Pittetalsuggested,isthatparentswerenotathomefortheir

children;andtherewasagreaterimpactontheegoofblackmenhavingtoservewhitemen.It

wassuggestedthatthisconsequencewaslessimpactingforwomen,ashistoricallywomenwere

usedtoserving.Asafurtherconsequence,itwasconsideredthatblackmenwouldneedto

exerttheirmasculinitythroughotheravenuesofwhichwomenwerelikelytosuffertheburden

of.ItwasidentifiedbyPittetal(1977)thatthefinal,mainunderlyingcauseofBermuda’ssocial

structurewashowtheeconomicgrowthcouldnothavebeenasrapidwithouttheinputof

expatriates.ItwasacknowledgedhowthiscontributedtoBermudiansfeelingasthoughthey

weresecond-classcitizensintheirowncountry.“Thefactorsandinfluenceswehavediscussed

areboundtocreatespecialdifficulties…Theymakeitmuchhardertoachievetheobjectiveof

integration,andpeoplebecomethemoredissatisfiedbecausegoalsthatappearwithinreach

seemtocomenocloser.ManyoftheseproblemscometoaheadinBermuda’sschools,forin

somerespectsaschoolisamicrocosmofthesociety.”(Pittetal,1977;p8).

Pittetal(1977)madeanumberofrecommendations;thosedescribedhereinarethosemost

pertinenttotheCJS.Pittproposedalternativeaccommodationforfemaleprisonersandforat

leastonefull-timeprobationofficertobededicatedexclusivelytoworkintheprisons.Theneed

forahalfwayhouseforyoungoffenderswassuggestedforthosewhomightbereturningto

54TherestillexiststheappointmentofaBritishGovernorinBermuda.


57

dysfunctionalhomesandforsocialworkerstoengageinworkwiththefamiliesofyoung

offendersbeforetheirrelease.ThereportrecommendedtheestablishmentofaPolice

Authority;forthepoliceservicetobecomemore‘Bermudianised’55andforanindependent

elementtothepolicecomplaintsprocess.Alternativeprovisionsforconductingmatrimonialand

domesticcasesinprivatewasadvocated,toavoidpublicembarrassmentthatcouldleadto

furtherdetrimentsforthoseinvolved.Mandatorypenaltiesforoffencesshouldbere-examined

–theCommissionteam,includingexperiencednon-Bermudianmagistratescommentedthat

they“…weresurprisedattheseverityofpunishmentsimposedbythecourtsofBermudafor

relativelytrivialtrafficoffences.”(Pittetal,1977;p33).Theyprovidedexamplessuchasthe

assaultofapoliceofficerresultingina$50fine,whilefailingtostopatastoplightgenerateda

fineof$60.56

RacialDifferences&theCriminalJusticeSystem

Inthelatterpartofthe20thCentury,areportwascommissionedbythegovernmentoftheday

tolookintotheCJS’spoliciesandprocedures,andthecontinuedperceptionsthatpeopleof

differentracesandbackgroundsweretreateddifferently.

InareviewofpreviousreportssuchasWoodingetal’s(1969)andPittetal’s(1977)three

consistentissueswerefoundthatwereconsideredtobeofcontemporarysignificance(Tumim

etal,1992).NamelyBermuda’strafficlaws,drugrelatedoffencesandthetumultuous

relationshipbetweenthepoliceandyoungpeopleofBermuda.57

Takingasnapshoton30thJune1992,tolookatthemainreasonsforincarcerationTumimand

theteamreportedontherateofoffencetypes.Thetopsixoffencescouldhavebeen

consolidatedasdrugordrugrelated(theft;drugimportation;drugsupply;breakingand

55TheprisonservicewascommendedforhavingahighBermudianstaffpopulation.56Anotherexampleillustratedhowashopliftermightreceiveprobation,wheresomeonefoundinpossessionof2gramsofcannabiscouldreceiveafineof$200or20daysimprisonment.57TheMotorCarActof1976andtheDangerousDrugsActof1936and1966werecitedasacauseofthe1977disordersastheygavepolicethepowertostopandsearch(Tumimetal,1992).


58

entering;drugpossessionandconspiracytoimportdrugs)at51%ofalloffences.The7thhighest

singlereasonforconvictionwasdrivingdisqualification.58Onthesamesnapshotday,Tumimet

al(1992)foundthatover9%oftheoffenceswereminor,implyingthattheywereoffencesthat

didnotrequireimprisonmentasaresponse.Moreover,intheprecedingthreeyears(1989-91)

totheinvestigation,incarcerationforminoroffencesrangedfrom33%(1989)to39%(1991);

andoverthesameperiodtrafficoffencesaccountedformorethan21%ofallreceptions.Tumim

etal(1992)arguedthattherewaslittleuseofnon-custodialsanctions;whichconsistedlargely

offinesandrareuseofcompensationorders.Theynotedfromobservationsincourt,thatfines

werenotsetaccordingtothefinancialcircumstancesoftheoffender,andfailurestopaycould

leadtoimprisonment.When,afternon-payment,theyoungnervousoffenderwasaskedhow

longitwouldtakethemtopay,theoffender’ssuggestionwasalsonotbasedonanyrealistic

assessment(Tumimetal,992).

Thesnapshotdayoftheprisonpopulationshowed40.9%ofallthoseconvictedandremanded

were22-30yearsofage;withover50%beingaged30yearsandunder.

Truetothecurrentday,Tumimetal(1992)highlightedtheuseofmotorbikesinBermudaasa

rightofpassageformostyoungpeople.Lawsgoverningroadtrafficwasviewedasasourceof

contentionbetweentheyoungpeoplewhowouldoftenbefoundinviolationandpolicebeing

eagertoenforcethelaw.Drivingoffencesincurredperiodsofdisqualificationandadditional

disqualificationswouldberunconsecutive,leavingmanyunabletodrivelegallyforlongperiods

(Tumimetal,1992).Periodsofdisqualificationwouldalsobeenforcedafterapersonmight

havehadtoserveaterminprison.Itwasalsoconsidereddifficultforpeopleusingcarstoabide

bythespeedinglimitoftheland.

Whenin1991,statisticsshowedareductioninthecourtsuseoffinesinrelationtodrug

offences,statisticsshowedanincreaseincustodialsentences(Tumimetal,1992).Thereport

notedtheapparentreluctanceofthecourtstousenon-custodialoptionsthatwouldrequire

supervision.Also,probationorderswereusedtoamuchgreaterdegreethancommunityservice

orders;possiblynotconsideredviableoptionsascommunityrehabilitationservicesinBermuda

werelimited(Tumimetal,1992).

58Thefollowingtopfive(position8-12)offencescollectivelythereafterwereforviolence(e.g.rape,assault,robbery,murderandGBH–22%).


59

“Ifacommunitylocksuptoomanycitizensitmaypreserveordershort-termbutwillloserespect.Over-confinementactsasaschoolofcrime,andremovestheshameofimprisonment,particularlyamongsttheyoung.…Itisasocialproblem…”(Tumimetal,1992,p2).

Tumimetal(1992)providedasynopsisofhowyoungpeoplecameintocontactwiththeCJS

early.Theyfirstcameintocontactforfightsatprimaryschool–“Bothparentsandteachersuse

thepoliceasathreattomisbehavingchildren…”(p37).Fromtheageof12,Tumimetal

suggeststhatteenagersbecometiredoftheirbicyclesandstartbecominginterestedin

motorizedtransport.Aroundthistime,hesuggeststhat“Thereisafailuretobringtheparents,

aswellasthechild,toaccountforthischargeand,thus,totakeresponsibilityforthefuture

behaviourofthechild…”(p37).

FamilyGroupConferencingasaRJresponsetoyoungpeoplegettinginvolvedincrimewould

havebeen,andcouldstillbeanidealresponseasearlyinterventiontoaddressTumimetal’s

finding.Itwasfurtherobservedbytheinvestigationteam,thatyoungblackchildrenwere

unsupportedinthecourt,whilechildrenofwhitefamilieshadsupportasearlyasthepolice

stationtotryanddiscourageadvancement,butifnot,werepresentinthecourt.Accordingto

Tumimetal,betweentheagesof14-16youngpeoplestartjoyridingontouristvehicles,by16

theyhavetheirownvehicles,andwithinthreemonthsbecomeinvolvedwiththepolicebecause

ofthis.Atsuchearlystages,policeinvolvementreinforcesattitudestowardsthepoliceas

hostile.Tumimetal’s(1992)reporturgedforimprovementsinpolicetrainingandforinnovative

policecommunitywork.Theyfoundapositiveattitudeofpolicetobeinvolvedinroadtraffic

safetyandtrainingfortheyoung,butthatthepolicewereuninterestedtobeinvolvedwithATI

andthePolice&CriminalEvidenceAct(PACE)oftheUK,thelatterpromotingnon-custodial

sanctionswhenpossible.

Inconclusionthereportfoundthateducationwasstillsegregatedinsomeplacesandthis

createddifferentacademicstandards,whichledtosomeschoolshavingareputationforpoor

schoolingandpoliceinvolvement.Minordrugoffencesagainsttheyoungpreventedthemfrom

traveltotheUSandthereforeexcludedtheoptionoftertiaryeducation.“Theworkofthe

magistratesandthepoliceinBermudainvolvessystematiccriminalizationoftheyoung.”

(Tumimetal,1992;p41).Thereportmadeanumberofrecommendations.


60

WhiletrafficoffencesmaybeunsuitableforRJbecauseofthelackofidentifiablevictims,there

areotherareasofcriminalitythatcouldbeaddressedusingRJ.However,theoristssuchas

Loftonwoulddisagree.

Lofton(2004)arguesthatRJislimitedinitsabilitytochallengesystemicinjusticesonfour

counts–

1. Asitdoesnotaddresssocio-economicrootsofcrime,andisthereforenotpreventative.

2. Withcrimesseenasviolationsagainstpeopleandrelationships,itdoesnotaddress

largersystemicallyperpetratedcrimes,suchaswhite-collarcrimes.

3. Itfailstorecognizethatoffendershaveoftenalsobeenvictims.Victimsofstructural

violence;thetypeofthingsthathavebeenhighlightedassystemicracialinequityin

Bermuda.

4. Itistoopiecemeal,dealingwithisolatedincidencesofcrime;whichLoftonemphasesis

usuallythedisadvantagedoffendingagainstthedisadvantaged.Conferencing/circlesdo

notincludegovernmentleadersandwealthypowerbrokerswhomshesuggestscan

affectchange.

Itcouldbeargued,ifappliedtoBermuda,59thatLoftonstretchesthelimitations,wherepoint3

couldbeconsideredanextensionofpoint1.Topointone,RJisrecognizedasreactivebecauseit

isusedinresponsetoacrimehavingbeencommitted(restorativepracticeshowever,are

viewedasproactive,andthereforepotentiallypreventative).Alsoinregardstopoint3,there

areprogrammesthatrecognizeoffenderscanbevictimsandviceverse;programmessuchas

theSycamoreTreediscussedinthefollowingchapter.Inthecaseofpoint2,white-collarcrime

neednotbeexcludedfromRJinterventions.Allthatwouldbenecessaryisthatthereare

identifiablevictims;andthattheoffenderwerepreparedtomakerestitutionbasedonthe

requestsofthevictims,whichinthecaseofwhite-collarcrimemightmorereadilybefinancial

restitution.RJcanevenbeutilizedtodealwithcasesofpolicecomplaints.Withregardsto

Lofton’sfourthpoint,thatthedisadvantagedusuallycommitcrimesagainstother

disadvantagedpeoplewouldseemtoimplythatdisadvantagedpeopledonotneedhealing;

59Lofton’scritiqueofRJisfocusedontheUSsystem.


61

whomevertheharmisdonetoshouldbeaffordedtheopportunityforhealingandreparation

fromtheverypersonthathasdirectlyharmedthem.ThisisrelationalandwhyRJfocusesonthe

reparationofrelationships.Inthepublicationentitled‘RestorativeJusticeinDiverseand

UnequalSocieties’Daly(2000)pointsoutinthecaseofNewZealand,thatconferencing

emergedoutofacombinationof‘top-down’activismbyjudgesand‘bottom-up’activismby

Maorigroups.Daly(2000)citesCunneenwhoarguesthatinAustraliathemoveofRJCinto

policyandlegislationoccurredthroughmid-levelprofessionalsandadministrators,suchasthe

police“largelysidesteppingpolitics‘frombelow’.”(p170).

MorecloselyinBermuda,Pittetal(1978)statedthat“…thoughregrettable…civildisordersin

Bermuda…functionedasakindofextra-parliamentarypoliticalaction;someofthemhave

expressedtheangerofyoungblackmenaboutthecountry’slawsandthewaytheyare

enforced…”(p35).Moreover,Pittetal’sreporthighlightedthevalueofopendialogue“…public

hearingsinBermudaservedacatharticfunction.Theyallowedpeopletovoicegrievancesand

sentimentsthatwereotherwisebottledup,andtheveryopportunitytoexpressthemprompted

aneasingoftension.”(p36).

Daly(2000)doescontesthoweverthatanyjusticesystemhasthepotentialtoreproduce

existingsystemicinequities.IntheirreviewoftheBermudianCJS,Lawrence&Codrington(2014)

bringtothefore,howsystemicmaintenanceofracialinequalitycanalsoexplainthe

internalizationofthisintheattitudesofthosethataredisadvantaged.“Oneparticularchallenge

thatsocialjusticeleadersfaceisreconcilingstructuralcausesofinequitywithseemingly

compellingevidenceof“self-sabotage”byyoungblackmen,especially.”(p25)

Offendersmayhavelittlecontroloversocialstructuresbuttheyareactiveintheirdecisions

aboutoffending,joiningsubcultures(Braithwaite,1989)andengaginginRJ.Thisassertionisnot

intendedtominimizethatBermudaisoneoftheworld’smostpunitivesocieties(Lawrence&

Codrington,2014)orthatsystematicinequitiesexist.60

60“Aperhapsmoreambitiousaim[ofRJconferencing]isthattheprocesscanhelptheoffendertoaddressproblemsbehindtheoffending.Thoughvictimswerenotalwaysabletosaywhetherthiswasoccurring(notsurprisingly,giventhelackoffeedbacktovictimsabouttheprogressofoutcomeagreements),offendersthemselvesfelttheprocesshadmadethemaddresstheseproblemsin61percentofcases.”(Shaplandetal(2007,p38)


62

Amongotherconcerns,governmentrecognizedthattheTumimetalreportrecommendations

hadnotbeenimplementedandin1999introducedthe‘AlternativestoIncarcerationinitiative’.

Itspoketoproviding“Amulti-facetedapproachforarestorativejusticesystem–legislation

review,programsandservicesinandoutofcorrections.”(Maybury,2008;p3).

TheTumimetal(1992)reportrecommendedchangestothelaw,suchastheabolitionof

mandatoryprisontermsforroadtrafficoffencesandtheuseofconsecutiveperiodsofdriving

disqualification;adoptionoftheUKCriminalJusticeAct1991andthePACEforgreater

accountabilityofpolicepractice,alongwithanindependentpolicecomplaintsprocess.Itwas

recommendedthatthePoliceCommissionerappointateamtoimprovepublicrelationsandfor

allthecriminaljusticeagenciestofallunderthesameministry.Theycalledforareviewofthe

CJSpoliciesandprocedurestocreateATI,suchasgreateruseofcommunityserviceordersanda

movefromcustodytocorrections.Trainingforprisonstaffwithinvolvementofthetraining

advisorfromtheForeignCommonwealthOffice,pre-releaseregimeprogrammesandincreased

contactwithotherCJSagencies.Theyrecommendedtheabolishmentofcorrectivetraining,that

nooneundertheageofsixteenbekeptinprisonandforaninvestigationonthefeasibilityofa

FamilyCourtsystem.ItwasalsorecommendedthattheHumanRightsCommissiondevelopa

RaceRelationsDivision;aworkingpartybeformedtolookintosocialconditionswithinBermuda

andfortheeradicationofoffencesthatdiscriminatedonthebasisofraceandsex,whichwere

outdated.

The‘ATIinitiative’isconcernedwiththepunitiveapproachoftheCJS,prisonovercrowding,and,

notsocynically,thefinancialburdentothegovernment.Further,forthosepolicymakersand

stakeholdersconcernedwithcost,itisnoteworthythatthecostofincarceratingasingle

offenderin1992wasestimatedat$36,500(Tumimetal,1992);at$60,000in2006(Maybury,

2008)andby2014estimatedat$85,000(Lawrence&Codrington,2014).Maybury(2008)puts

thecostofcommunitysupervisionat$15,000in2006.

“Thebroadaimofthesemeasuresistoreducetheprisonpopulation,decreasecriminalizationandrecidivismandfurtherensurethattheemphasisforspecifiedinfractionsshiftsfromapunitiveapproachtoachievingvoluntarycompliance.”(Wilson,2011;p1).

Whileconsideredbysomeaspartofarestorativeapproach,ATIspeakslittletotheneedsof

victimsandrelatedly,theredemptionofoffenders.However,areductionincrimedoesbenefit


63

thewholecommunity.Thisissuecanbebetterunderstoodwhenmeasuresorinterventionsare

viewedintermsoftheirdegreeofrestorativeorientation;thisisexploredinthenextchapter.

Theremainderofthechapterfocusesonsomeofthechangesthathaveoccurred,and

consistenciesthathaveremainedwithintheCJSsincetheturnofthecentury.Itreviewstheup-

to-dateincarceratedpopulationandpracticesthatarereparative.

CrimeinBermuda&the21stCenturyCriminalJusticeSystem

AnumberofchangestookplacewithintheCJS.In2001theDrugTreatmentCourtProgramme

started;thesuccessoftheprogrammewouldbeestimatedat75-80%3yearslater(Stevenson,

2014).Smith(2002)reportsonthetraininggivenonATI,quotingtheMinisterofLabour&Home

Affairs“…theprisonssysteminBermudawillfromnowonbeknownastheDepartmentof

Corrections,inabidtochangemindset.”Asanoutcomeoftheinitiatives,theprophecywasthat

Bermudawouldseeareductionincrimeandprisoncosts(Smith,2002).

VictimImpactStatements(VIS)was(finally)enteredintotheCriminalCodeAmendmentsAct

2001.UsedforthefirsttimeinaSupremeCourtcasein2002,witha13year-oldvictim,the

presidingjudgeviewedthenewlegislationasempoweringvictims.“Priortothistheyhadno

rightorabilitytospeaktoaJudgetoletthemknowhowthecrimeimpactedthem.Itcan

definitelymakeadifferenceonthesentence.”(JusticeSimmons,quotedbyTalbot,2002).The

newspaperarticlegoesontostate,“IncasesheardbeforetheSupremeCourt,therewasseldom

anymentionofthevictim’spainandsufferingandwhetherornottheywerebeing

compensatedforwhattheyhaveendured.…emotionaltrauma,stressorfinancialloss…”.

(Talbot,2002).TalbotnotesthatVISsarenotusedintrialsassufferingcausedtovictimsis

revealedduringthetrial.61

61TheBermudaCriminalCodeAmendmentAct2001“VictimImpactStatement(3)Attherequestofavictim,thecourtmayinstructtheclerkofthecourtorregistrartoreadthestatementintotherecordinopencourt.(4)Wherethevictimimpactstatementdisclosesconfidentialorsensitiveinformationormaterialthatmaycauseembarrassmentordistresstothevictimorhisfamily,thecourtmaydirectthatthestatementbedealtwithincamera.”


64

Recognizedatthetimeofenactment,asastepintherightdirection;thedirectionwasstilla

punitiveone.ItisnotalwaysthecasethattheoffenderwillevenheartheVIS.However,evenif

theydidsomewouldlikelyperceiveitasapunitivemeasuretoimpacttheirpunishment.Itdoes

notpromotedialogue,whichwouldhavegreaterimpactforhealing;likelyacknowledgedinthe

judge’sfinalstatement“…thislegislationthatwilltosomeextentempowerthevictim.”(Justice

SimmonsquotedbyTalbot,2002).

Fundingwasobtainedin2011topilotelectronicmonitoring–“…asavaluabletooltoenhance

publicsafetyandoffenderrehabilitation.”(Wilson,2011;p1).Onlytimewilltellifelectronic

monitoringinandofitselfcanenhancepublicsafety.Itcouldbearguedthatitismoreofanaid

forsupervision,anaidthatcontributestostatecontroloversocialcontrol.Asanalternative

however,itcouldbeveryvaluableinreducingincarceration.

In2014theMentalHealthTreatmentCourtpilotwentoperational,withtheobjectiveof

providing;(limitedtonon-violentoffending)aprogrammeforoffenderswithmentalhealth

issues(Bell,2015).Thepursuitoflegislationtosupportthecourtwasincludedintherecent

Governor’sThorneSpeech(Fergusson,2015).

Attheturnofthe21stCentury,Bermudaalsosawanincreaseinviolentoffending(Hortonetal,

2011;Strangeways,2011;Lawrence&Codrington,2014)and“…criminalactivity…an

overwhelmingconcerntoBermudians.”(Wilson,2011;p1).AccordingtotheBPSQuarterly

CrimeStatisticsof2012,Bermuda’smurderratepercapitawashigherthanNewYorkand

London.

In2011aparliamentaryreviewwasconductedonthecausesofviolentcrimeandgunviolence

(Hortonetal,2011).Thecommitteeidentifiedanumberofissuesthatneededtobeaddressed

suchasgangviolenceandgangrecruitment;illicitdrugs;dysfunctionalhomesandat-risk

children;theeducationalsystem;andoperationalissuesoftheBPSandDoC.Theyessentially

reportedsimilarhistoricalfindingsashadbeenidentifiedinthepast,relatedtoBermuda’ssocial

problemsandinequities.Theyfoundthatloweducationalattainmenthinderedemployment

opportunitiesthatassistedrecruitmentbygangs.Economicdisparitieswerefoundtocreatean

underclassandriseindrugtraffickingandanti-socialbehaviour.Policeenforcementfocusedon

minordrugplayersonthestreetandthesuggestionmade,wasthatthereneededtobemore

aggressivebordercontrol.


65

Hortonetel(2011)reportedsingle-parentfamiliesasanissuecontributingtothecriminal

climate.Childrenwereaffiliatingwithgangsbeforereachingmiddleschoolandstudentswere

sellingdrugsandexperimentingthroughpeer-pressureandbullying.Whenoffenderswere

apprehended,Hortonetalsuggested“Convictionsbyjuriesaresometimesdifficulttoachievein

Bermudabecauseofoursmallpopulation,whichmakesitmorelikelyforjurymemberstoknow

theaccusedorthesuspects’family.”(2011,p5).

Oneissueunderthesubtitle‘prisonservice’wasthat“Uponbeingreleasedfromprison,several

blackmaleshavefounditextremelydifficulttofindemploymentandtoearnenoughmoneyto

supporttheirfamilies,whichcreatesacycleofpoverty,angerandfrustration.”(Hortonetal,

2011,p6).

AconcernwithsomeoftherecommendationsthatHortonetal(2011)goontomakeisthat

theycreatefurtherexclusionofindividuals/gangmembersasaformofstatecontrol.Potentially

deepeningtheindividuals’senseofdisenfranchisement.In2014Lawrence&Codringtonargue

thatthewidestracialdisparitiesstilloccurinemployment,educationalaccessandtheCJS.

Despiteagrowingblackmiddle-class,andstudiesthatsuggestblackandwhitepeoples’

educationalattainmentisonpar(Lawrence&Codrington,2014).Therearestilla

disproportionatenumberofblackmalesarrestedandincarceratedcomparedtowhite

(Lawrence&Codrington,2014;ChiefJusticeKawaley,2014).Lawrence&Codrington(2014)

argue,“…theoldracialordermaybereallyevolvingintosomethingmorecomplex.”(p21).And

againtheycontend,“Theobviouschallengeforequityreformersisreducingsubstantiveracial

disparitiesinthesecriticalsectors.Lessobvious,butequallyurgent,maybeunderstandingand

grapplingwiththecollective,socialpsychologicaleffectsofthosedisparities.”(p21).

Itisimportant,withthefocusofthecurrentstudy,totakeacloserlookattheDoC.

Casemates&theBermudaDepartmentofCorrections(DoC)

IntheCriminalJusticeReviewof1992,theauthorreferredtotheconstructionofanew

maximum-securityprison(Tumimetal).Casematesbuiltin1830servedasamaximum-security

prisonfrom1963untilSeptember1994,whenWestgateopened(Harris,2014).Asa$40million

facility(TheRoyalGazette,1993),itwasviewedasamove“…fromthe18thCenturytothe21st


66

Century.”(Gibbons,quotedintheRoyalGazette,1994).Atthetimeofopening,theonly

intendedadditionalstaffrecruitedwastobeapsychologist,socialworkerandvocationalofficer

(TheRoyalGazette,1994).ItwasintendedthatWestgateCorrectionalFacility,unlike

Casemates,wouldhelpcreatefocusonrehabilitationandeducationforprisoners,whichinturn

wastoleadtoareductioninreoffending.Westgateisoneofthreefacilitatesthatmakeupthe

DoC.Aminimum-securityfacilityformen(the‘Farm’),andafemaleandyoungoffendersfacility

(the‘Coed’)existattheeastendoftheisland.

InmatePopulation

AstudyconductedontheprisonpopulationofBermudain2002,wasrepeatedin2012(Riley,

2013).Atthetimeofthesurveyin2012,58%oftheinmatesparticipated;comparedto52%in

2002.Thestudyprovidesanumberofinterestingfindings–

• 92%wereBermudian,with89%beingblackand“…virtuallyallofthoseareblack

males”(Ridley,2013,p5).62

• Comparedto2002,in2012theprisonpopulationwasageing,from32yearsofageto36

yearsofage,respectively.63

• “Withthree-quartersofcrimebeingunplanned,thissuggeststhatthepublicmaybe

abletopreventcertainkindsofcrime,suchasBreakingandEntering.”(Riley,2013,p25).

• Witha1%declinefrom2002,64%ofinmateshadpreviouslybeeninprison.When

recidivismreferstore-imprisonmentwithin3yearsfollowingrelease,theratefallsto

37%.64

• In2002,drivingoffencesaccountedfor5%ofincarcerations;thiswasdownto1%in

2012(theexactsamepatternfor“non-paymentchild”-Riley,2013).Thisfindingis

promisingwhenconsideringpastcriticismsoftheCJSusingimprisonmentforminor

offences.

62In1992theratioofblackmaleswas15:2(Tumimetal,1992)63In199250%oftheprisonpopulationwerereportedtobe30yearsoldandyounger(Tumimetal,1992).64ThispercentageislessthanthecomparableUKandUSrecidivismrateof43%(Riley,2013).


67

• Thereportstates“Drugoffencescontinuetobethesinglemostreasonforincarceration,

upin2012(from20%to28%).”(Riley,2013,p6).46%ofrespondentssaidthatthey

wereundertheinfluenceoflegalorillegaldrugsatthetimeofoffending.

However,whengroupedtogetherviolentoffencesaccountedfor42%(in2012)ofthereasons

forincarceration.65Reportedviolencewithinprisonhadalsoincreasedoverthedecade(2002-

2012)risingfrom21%to26%respectively(Riley,2013).66Referringtoemergingresultsand

evidenceofbestpractice,theUN(2006)reportthat“Thereissomeevidence(UnitedKingdom

andtheUnitedStates)tosuggestthatrestorativejusticeprocessescanassistinpromotinga

saferenvironmentinsidecorrectionalinstitutions.”(p88)

• In2012,14%ofthoseincarceratedwereservingsentencesofoneyearorless

(comparedto36%in2002),30%wereservingatleast2yearsbutlessthan5years(28%

in2002);and23%in2012wereservingsentencesof10yearsorgreater(comparedto

14%in2002).“Longersentenceshavebeenreflectedinthesharpfall-offinthose

incarceratedforoneyearorless,andlargeincreasesforthosewhohadtoservefive

yearsormore.However,themedianlengthoftimetoserveforbothstudieswas3½

years.”(Riley,2013,p27).

• “Just3%ofinmates(5individuals),statedthattheybelongedtoanorganisedgang.

Gatheredintelligence,however,wouldindicatethatthatnumberismuchhigher”(Riley,

2013,p47).With77%ofcrimesreportedlycommittedalone(Riley,2013),couldfurther

accountforthelownumbersadmittinggangaffiliation.

• 81%ofinmateswereunmarried(consistentwith2002).

• 27%ofinmatesreportedtohavinghadaparentwhohadbeenincarcerated.Parentsof

inmateshadalsoincreasedintheiruseofdrugsandalcohol(39%in2002–48%in

65In2012,violentoffencesseparatedoutincludedrobbery(12%),murder(8%),sexualassault(7%),assault(7%),grievousbodilyharm(6%)andmanslaughter(2%).Thesepercentageswerelargelyidenticalin2002withtheexceptionsbeinggrievousbodilyharm4%;murder6%androbbery10%,allthreehavingincreasedby2012.The42%calculationisnotdirectlyprovidedbyRiley,butcalculatedbasedonthedataheprovides.66Itishighlypossiblethatsomeviolentoffencesarerelatedtodrugactivity,insideandoutsideofprison.


68

2012);andtheparents’participationinreligiousactivitieshaddecreased(78%-2002–

71%-2012).

• 31%ofinmateswerewithoutacademicqualificationsuponenteringtheprison

(comparedto54%in2002).67

• 15%ofinmateswereunemployedpriortoenteringprison.Riley(2013)notesthatthisis

“…nearlytwicethenationallevelof8%in2012.”(p7).

Insummary,offenceshavebecomemoreviolent,drugusepriortoincarcerationmore

prevalent,sentenceslonger,educationalattainmentgreater,offendersolderandblackmales

stillremainthelargestgroupimprisoned.

Morerecentrecidivismrates(basedonareturnwithin3yearsofrelease)announcedbythe

CommissionerofCorrectionsColonelLambshowedadeclinefrom24%in2013to19%in2014

(Jones,2015).Thedeclineaccreditedto“…acombinationoffactors…programmesareworking

withinCorrections.Itisalsoatestamenttothejointeffortsofcorrectionsandgovernment

agenciesandtheprovisionofalternativestoincarceration.”(Lamb,quotedinJones,2015).

Aspartoftherehabilitationprogrammesoffered,theDoCprovidesaviolence-reduction

programme;theCALM(ControllingAngerandLearningtoManageit)programme;‘Thinkingfor

aChange’(acognitive-behaviouralproblem-solvingandsocialskillscourse),drugeducation,

treatmentandrelapseprevention.Therearearangeofeducationalclassesincludingbasic

literacy;theGeneralEducationDiplomaprogramme;businessandcomputerstudies.Thereare

alsoopportunitiesforlow-riskoffenders(maleandfemale)toattendtheBermudaCollege,

obtainingqualificationsalongwithstudentsfromthecommunity.Socialandvocationalcourses

includeprogrammessuchastheFather’sParentingprogramme;LifeSkills(involvinganumber

ofmoduleslikebudgeting,resumewritingandinterviewskills);sewing;art;auto-mechanics;

culinaryskillsandhorticulture.AttheFarmfacilityprisonersgrowproduceandrearanimals

(suchasgoatsandrabbits).Westgatehasametalworkshopandbothmalefacilitieshave

carpentryworkshops.

67Itwasfurtherreportedthat63%oftheinmatesreportedhavingachievedtheirGEDwhilstincarcerated(Riley,2013).


69

TheFarmhoststheRightLivingHouse,aseparateresidentialstructuredprogrammefor

offenderswithdrug-misuseproblems.Offendersjointheprogrammeandcompletetheir

sentencesfromtheunit,usuallyhavingtheopportunitytoseekpaidemploymentinthelatter

stagesoftheprogramme(employmentthatcanbecontinuedpost-release).Low-riskoffenders

(someescorted,othersunescorted)alsodocharityworkinthecommunity.

CharityWorkasaFormofMacro-communityReparation68

Thecharityworkprovidedbytheprisonersincludesmaintenanceworkatseniornursinghomes,

schoolsandcharities,aswellaspreparatoryworkformajoreventssuchasCupMatch.At

Westgate,agroupofLife-sentencedprisonersformedasupportgroupcalledLifeline,andthey

regularlydoworkforcharities,suchasrestoringoldbikesanddonatingthemtoschoolchildren.

On28thFebruary2014theBermudaSunnewspaperreportedanexclusivefront-pagearticle

entitled‘We’reNotMonsters’(Jones,2014).Thestoryreportedoneightlifeprisonersserving

convictionsforoffencessuchasmurder.Inthecontinuationofthestoryonpages4-5thetitle

read‘TheKillerstryingtochange:SomeofBermuda’smostrecognisablecriminalsdrawstrength

fromLifelinegroup’.Thecharitableworkofthegroupwaslistedalongwiththeirhopesforthe

future.However,awayfromtheeyesandearsofmostreaders,complaintsweremadetothe

DoC.Victimsunawareofthearticleaheadoftimewereoffendedandoutragedbywhatseemed

tobereceivedasanintrusionintotheirlivesbythosetheyperceivedaslockedawaybehind

closeddoors.

Rehabilitation&RestorativeJustice

ATIinitiativeswereoriginallydesignedintheUS,toreducemassincarceration.However,two

yearsintoitsintroductioninBermuda,thethenMinisterofLabourandHomeAffairsstated“Itis

theintentionofGovernmenttomovefromapredominatelypunitivesystemforcriminaljustice

offenderstoonebaseduponrehabilitationandrestorativejustice.…ATIisnottobeasoft

optiontoprison.Infact,prisonreformisanintegralcomponentoftheprocessandwillrequire

thedevelopmentoftoughandmandatedprogrammesforinmates.”(Smith,2002).Itis

commendablethatthegovernmentmadeadistinctionbetweenrehabilitationandRJasthe

68Referredtoinchapter1,aspartoftheRJcommunitydebate(McCold,2004).


70

author,withover17yearsofexperienceworkinginrehabilitationwouldconsiderthemas

distinct.Itisarguedmostappropriatelythat-“WehavetoacceptthatATIisreallya

managementofrisk.”(PoliceCommissionerSmith,quotedbySmith2002).Restorativepractices

canbeutilizedtohelppreventcrime;astheoldadagegoes,preventionisbetterthancure.69

If‘fully-orientated’RJiskeptvoluntary,atallstagesofthejudicialprocess(e.g.pre,post-

conviction),itavoidsthedangerofbecomingadversarial–andlessaboutthemainstakeholders

thanthestate.SometheoristswouldarguethatRJincludesrehabilitationandevenretribution

(e.g.Daly,2000).

Wardetal(2014)focusintheirarticleon‘RestorativeJustice,OffenderRehabilitationand

Desistance’.TheyrefertoadvocatesofRJeitheracknowledgingandincorporatingrehabilitation,

orviewingrehabilitationasineffectiveinreducingreoffendingandadequatelyrespondingto

crime.TheyciteMcCold&Wachtel(2002inWardetal,2014)asanexampleofthelatter

perspective,statingthattheydismisstreatmentprogrammesasfailingtoholdoffenders

accountable.Ironically,itisarguedthatrehabilitationfocusesonreducingriskof

reoffending/publicsafetyandprotection(community),howeversomeRJschemesaresetupto

includethegoalofreducingoffending.Itisclearthatthereisadistinctionbetween

rehabilitationandRJ,insofaras,rehabilitationfocusesontheoffenders’riskfactorsandskill

acquisition,opposedtoRJbeingvictim-centered.Rehabilitationofoffendersbenefitsthewider

communityanddesistancefromoffendingalsorequirescommunityacceptanceofreturning

offenderstoavoidcontinuedshaming-stigmatization.

Therefore,theaboveexamplesofcharityworkmaygivebacktothewidercommunityandcan

beconsideredasameansofmakingamends;however,itcanstillbeneglectfuloftheneedsof

thedirectvictims.“Perhapsthefirststepistodismantlethepolarizeddistinctionbetween

offendersandvictims.”(Wardetal,2014,p32).ThisveryapproachisadoptedbytheSTP–

coveredinsessionone;andgoessomewaytoacknowledgetheeffectsofsocialdisparitiesthat

disadvantagepeople,whoaresubsequentlyoverrepresentedintheCJS.

Inthefinalconclusionpointofthe‘ProfileofthePrisonPopulation’presentation,Riley(2013)

writes“Bermuda’srankingasoneoftheworld’stopincarceratorsisperhapssomethingnotto

69Restorativepracticescanbeusedinschoolstomanageanarrayofissuesincludinggangaffiliationandbullying.


71

beproudof,evenasothersintheregionaredoingsimilarly.Theissuesofalternativesto

incarcerationandrestorativeapproachestojusticemayhavetobelookedatagain.”(p55).

Thischapterprovidedinformationofthewiderclimateandculturewithinwhichtheactionand

researchwouldtakeplace.SometheoristssuggestthattheuseofRJisineffectiveinchallenging

socialinequities.Further,inrecognizingandattemptingtoaddresstheexcessiveuseof

punishmentforminoroffences,ATIwasintroduced.However,thischapterhasarguedthatATIs

aremerelyanotherformofstatecontrolandriskmanagement,whichlikelydoeslittletoreduce

thecommunity’sfearorcrime;anddoesnothingtorepairtheharmcausedbycrimetothose

directlyaffected.

TheUN(2006)advisethattheintroductionofrestorativeprogrammesbeprogressive“…

startingwithmoremodestinitiativesthathavethepotentialtocreatetheexperienceofsuccess

…andprepareeveryoneforsomemorechallenginginitiatives.”(p.17)Thecurrentresearchwas

basedonthispremise,thatstartingsmallanddevelopingincrementally–one,thelevelofRJ

orientationintheprogrammes(phaseoneandtwo)and,twothegradualinclusionofmore

seriousoffencesforthefully-orientatedinterventionofrestorativejusticeconferencing.The

programmesaredescribedinthefollowingchapter.


72

v CHAPTER4–THEINTERVENTIONMODEL

“Theleastdevelopedbutpotentiallyoneofthemostvaluableusesofconferencingisincorrections…Prisonsandtheparolesystemareripeforinnovationbecause,ascurrently

constituted,theydonotwork.“(Wachteletal,2010,p113).

Introduction:RestorativeOrientation

Thischapterdescribesthethreeinitialinterventionsthatweretoberesearched,thelevelof

restorativeorientationofeachandbrieflydescribesthedifferencesbetweentheprogrammes.

Itprovidesbackgroundinformationonthefollowingobjectivesofthethesisandispartofthe

researchmethodology-

o Toexploretheexperienceandeffectsofanexperimentalprogrammeofrestorative

justiceforvictimsandoffendersinBermuda;and

o Toevaluateandcontrasttheapproachesusedinordertodrawimplicationsfor

futurepracticeandpolicyinBermuda,forinclusionofrestorativejustice.

Thechapteralsoprovidesinformationonhowthewholeinitiativewasconstructedin

accordancewithpastresearchandguidanceofbestpractice.

Asdiscussedintheopeningchapter,thisthesisadoptsthedefinitionprovidedbyMarshall

(1998)“RestorativeJusticeisaprocesswherebypartieswithastakeinaspecificoffence

collectivelyresolvehowtodealwiththeaftermathoftheoffenceanditsimplicationsforthe

future”(p28).

Despite,thecontroversythatcanarisewithdefinitionsorrejectionsofspecificdefinitionsto

avoidrestrictingprocesses,McCold(2000)offersaveryusefulmodel.McCold’sVenndiagram

(figure1.1below)distinguishesbetweenpracticesoffull,mostlyorpartialrestorative

orientation.Thecirclesrelatetothemainstakeholdersofanoffenceorwrongdoingandatthe

intersectionofthethreecircles(-‘victimreparation’‘offenderresponsibility’and‘communities

ofcarereconciliation’),fullyrestorativepracticesareachieved.


73

AccordingtoMcColdfullpracticeswouldincludepeacecircles,sentencingcirclesandvarious

formsofconferencing.Practicesoccurringoutsidetheintersectionarethoselabeled‘mostly’or

‘partly’restorative.McCold(2000)viewspracticesthatare‘mostly’restorativeincludingtruth

andreconciliationcommissionsandvictim–offendermediation.‘Partial’practiceswouldinclude

reparationboards;youthaidpanelsandvictimreparation.70Toews(2006)usesaverysimilar

VenndiagramtothatofMcCold’s(2000)butToewsclaimstofocusonrestorativevaluesand

usesdifferentlabels–shereferstotheintersectionofthethreecirclesasbeing‘socially

restorative’givingopportunityforthesocialissuesofcrimetobedealtwith.Attheintersection

oftwocirclesToewsreferstoas‘relationallyrestorative’,respondingtotwosetsof“justice

participants”,andpracticeswithinonecircleas“individuallyrestorative”.Themaindifference

betweenMcCold’sandToewsmodelsarethatToewslabelsthethreecirclesas“victimneeds,

offenderfamilyneedsandoffenderneeds”;thensurroundingtheentireVenndiagramis

anothercirclewhichToewslabelscommunity(Toews,2006,p61).Onthebasisofthelatter

difference,Toewsprecisemodelisnotadoptedhereasatfacevalueitisweightedinfavourof

theoffender.However,therelationaltermsusedappeartotallyinkeepingwithrestorative

values.

TheinterventionsthatformedpartoftheexperimentalprogrammeinBermudacouldbe

viewedasreflectingeachofMcCold’s(2000)labelingofpractices–RJConferencinghaving‘full’

orientation(andasbeingsociallyrestorative);theSycamoreTreeProjectreflectinga‘mostly’

70Most‘alternativestoincarceration’wouldmostappropriatelyfallunder‘mostly’or‘partial’orientation.Forexample,communityorderswitharequirementtofulfillcommunityservice,couldbeconsidered‘partial’RJorientation.

Vicxmreparaxon

Communixescare

reconcilliaxon

Offenderresponsibility

Figure1.1VenndiagramillustratingMcCold’s(2000)theoryonthedegreesofrestorativeorientationinpractices.


74

restorativeorientation(andbeingrelationallyrestorative)andtheVictimEmpathyprogramme

providingpartialorientation(andindividuallyrestorative).ThisisillustratedintheVenndiagram

figure1.2below.

Thechaptermovesontoprovideadescriptionofeachofthethreeinterventions.

VictimEmpathyProgramme(VEP)

DevelopmentoftheVictimEmpathyProgramme(VEP)wascommissionedbytheBritish

OverseasTerritoriesPrisonReformCoordinatoroftheForeignCommonwealthOfficeandwas

specificallyadaptedfromapreviousprogrammeusedintheUK.Constructedin2012itwas

beingdeliveredinTurks&CaicosbeforeitwasfirstdeliveredinBermudainSeptember2014.

FourfacilitatorsweretrainedinthedeliveryoftheprogrammeinJune2014bytheprogramme

author–SimonDrsydale.71

71ThefourfacilitatorstrainedconsistedofoneoftheDepartmentofCorrections–SocialWorkers,PrincipalOfficers,CaseManagersandaPsychologyServiceProvider;theresearcherhadpreviouslybeentrained.FundedbytheForeign&CommonwealthOffice,representativesfromtheBritishVirginIslandsandCaymanIslandsalsoattendedthetraininginBermuda.

VictimEmpathyProgramme(VEP)Partialorientation(McCold,2000)Individuallyrestorative(Toews,2006)

Figure1.2Illustratingtheinterventions’levelofrestorativeorientation.

Victims

CommunitiesOffenders

RJConferencingFullorientation(McCold,2000)Sociallyrestorative(Toews,2006)

SycamoreTreeProject(STP)Mostlyorientated(McCold,2000)Relationallyrestorative(Toews,2006)


75

Withanoptimalnumberof8participants,theprogrammeconsistedof12sessionsdeliveredat

arateof2-3sessionsperweekfor2hourspersession(notincludingabreak),with2facilitators.

Itwasdesignedtolookattheimpactofoffendingfromtheperspectiveoftheoffender’svictims

andpossiblefuturevictims.Asacognitive-behaviouralprogrammeitwasinfluencedbyAlbert

Ellis’‘RationalEmotiveBehaviourTherapy’(REBT)developedinthemid-1950sandAaronBecks’

‘CognitiveTherapy’developedinthe1960s.

RegardinghumanbehaviourREBTasserts,basedontheABCmodel,thatitisnotadversityoran

externalactivatingevent(A)thatdeterminesemotionalorbehaviouralresponses/consequences

(C)tothesethings,butrathertheinterveningbelief(B)abouttheadversity/activatingevent.

Thetheorysuggeststhatadversitiesoractivatingeventscanbeexternalsituationsorinternal

thoughtwhetherfromthepast,presentorfuture(Dryden&Neenan,2003).REBTviewsbeliefs

(B)aboutadversitiesthataredysfunctionalasleadingtoemotionalandbehavioural

consequences(C)thatareself-destructive,irrationalandnegative.Totheopposite,beliefs(B)

abouttheadversity(A)thatarerationalandself-helping,leadtoconsequences(C)thatare

constructive,rationalandflexible.Thetheorysuggeststhatpeoplehavebothinnaterational

andirrationalbeliefsandthatwhetherornotthesearefromthepast;coreirrationalbeliefsare

heldontoandmaintainedinthepresent.Thetheoryalsosuggeststhatpeoplehaveachoiceof

whetherornottohelpthemselvestofeelbetterandhealthier.Thetherapyworksbyhelping

peopletoidentifyandunderstandthemediatingroleoftheirbeliefs(B)anddevelopwaysto

challengetheirbeliefsandsubsequentlychangeormodifytheconsequences.Thereforethe

therapyviewspeopleasthecreatorsoftheirownproblems.

AaronBeck,whofoundfromworkingwithpeoplesufferingfromdepressionthattheywould

quiteautomaticallyexpressnegativethoughts,shapedCognitiveBehaviouralTherapy(CBT).

Theseautomaticthoughtsreflectedpeople’scorebeliefs,beliefsthatweredevelopedthrough

lifeexperiences.Byencouragingpeopletoidentifytheirnegativethoughtsordistortionswould

allowthemtodevelopmorerealisticthoughts(Beck,1996).

ThestructureoftheVEPcomprisesofthreemodules:

• Module1focusesonanexplorationofthetypeofthoughtdistortions(i.e.blaming,

minimizinganddenial)thatreducecapacityforvictimempathyandsetsoutto


76

motivateoffenderstoreviewandassesstheirownthinking.Thisisdonethrough

variousexercisessuchastheuseofvignettes,disclosureoftheiroffendingandthe

writingofalettertotheirvictim.

• Module2givesoffenderstheopportunitytoapplyperspective-takingskills,to

objectivelygiveanaccountoftheoffenceanddemonstratevictimempathy.Thisis

largelydonethroughanexerciseinrole-reversal;whicheachgroupmembertakestheir

turnindoing.

Wachteletal(2010)describedtherole-playofanRJCinamaximum-securityprisonin

Pennsylvaniabasedonarealcrimeofgunviolenceanddrug-dealing,anddescribeditas“…a

powerfulemotionalexperienceforallofus.”(p114).Becausetheconferencevolunteerswere

abletoimaginetheangeranddisgustofalovedonebeinginjured,ortheshameoftheloved

oneofthepersonresponsibleforsuchanact.

• Module3allowsforanevaluationofskillslearnt,areviewoftheirearliervictimletters

andare-writeoftheletter,andanexplorationofin-directvictims,throughaRipple

Effectexercise.

Theprogrammedoesnotreviewinanydepththereasonswhyoffendersoffended,andwould

thereforebe‘individually’restorative(orofpartialorientation).

Groupparticipantswerelimitedtosix(opposedtothesuggestedeight)tokeepthenumberof

offender-participantsconsistentwiththenumberthatwouldparticipateintheSTP.

SycamoreTreeProject(STP)

“SycamoreTreeistakenfromtheBiblicalstoryofZacchaeus(Zac),thecorrupttaxcollector,

whoclimbedasycamoretreetoseeJesus(Luke,19:3-5).Hebeomesasymbolicoffender.Jesus

noticedhim,calledhimdownandtheymetoverameal.ThemeetingchangedZac’slife,which

hedemonstratedbymakingrestitutiontohisvictimsgivinghalfofhiswealthtothepoor.”

(citedinWilson,2009,p1).


77

InitsthirdeditionParker&VanNess(2010)onbehalfofPrisonFellowshipInternationalwrote

theSycamoreTreeProject(STP).TrainedfacilitatorsofPrisonFellowshipBermudadeliveredthe

programme.

Theprogrammestructureisillustratedinthetablebelow(Parker&VanNess,2010,p23).

Session Topic ObjectiveSession1

Introduction

ToprepareoffendersandvictimstoparticipateinSTP?

Session2

WhatisCrime?

Toexplorearestorativeunderstandingofcrime.

Session3

Responsibility

Tounderstandwhatitmeanstotakeresponsibilityforcommittinganoffence.

Session4

ConfessionandRepentance

Tounderstandthemeaning,powerandimportanceofforgiveness.

Session5

Forgiveness

Tounderstandthemeaning,powerandimportanceofforgiveness.

Session6

MakingAmends

Tounderstandmakingamendsasaresponsetocrime.

Session7

TowardReconciliation

Tomovetowardhealingandrestorationbysharinglettersandcovenantspreparedbybothvictimandoffenderparticipants.

Session8

Celebration

Toreflectonandcelebratethenewawarenessthatgroupmembershaveaboutcrimeandhealing

PrisonFellowshipministriesusetheSTPinsixcontinents(Parker&VanNess,2010).

Designedasaprogrammetobeconductedinprisons,theSTPusesBiblicalstoriestodiscuss

conceptssuchasresponsibilityandforgiveness.Thetableaboveillustratestheprogramme

structurethatconsistsofeightsessionsdeliveredonceaweek(for2hourspersession)withthe

finalsessionbeingacelebration.

“...SycamoreTreeisbasedonChristianvaluessuchastruth,integrity,responsibilityandaffirmation.ItisnotaprogrammeexplicitlypromotingtheChristianfaith.ThefocusoftheSycamoreTreeistochallengeattitudestooffendingbehaviour,raiseawarenessoftheimpactofcrimeonvictimsandthecommunities,andteachtheprinciplesandapplicationofrestorative


78

justiceandprovideoffenderswithanopportunitytomakeaninformedchoicetochangetheirbehaviour.”(CitedinParker&VanNess,2010,p31).

Recognizedbythisresearchasa‘mostly’restorativeintervention,STPbringstogetheroffenders

andunrelated/surrogatevictimsasgroupmembers.72Whileitisnotarequirementofthe

programmethatvictimsandoffendersareChristian,facilitatorsareexpectedtobe.STPis

usuallydeliveredtosixoffendersandsixvictim-volunteers;itislimitedtonomorethanfifteen

participants(withanidealratioofvictimsandoffendersbeing1:1)(Parker&VanNess,2010).

ThechapterwillnowoutlinethemaindifferencesbetweentheSTPandVEP.

ProgrammeDifferences

Thereareanumberofdifferencesbetweenthetwoprogrammesbeyondthemostobvious

differencebeingtheinclusionofunrelatedvictimsintheSTP.

PrisonFellowshipBermudaandtheSTPadoptedadifferentdefinitionofRJtothatofMarshall

(1998),adoptedbytheresearchandtheVEP.Religiousteachingsandvalues(valuesnotlimited

totheChristianfaith)formthecoreprinciplesofSTP,whiletheVEPisbasedonREBTandCBT.

TheVEPlooksatcrimefromtheperspectiveofthevictims,indirectvictimsandthecommunity;

itdoesnotfocusonthereasonsforoffending.STPalternativelyalsoseekstoexploretheimpact

ofcrimeontheoffenders,whichalsogivesoffenderstheopportunitytotalkaboutoffencesor

wrongdoingthathavebeencommittedagainstthem.InSTP,forgivenessisaspecifictopic,

allocatedawholesession.InVEPthereisnoexplicitreferencemadetoforgiveness;howeverit

wouldnotbeuncommonforoffenderstowanttoseektobeforgivenandofferanapologyin

letterstovictims.

IntheVEP,offendersareassigned(bythefacilitators)whichvictimstowritetheirlettersto.This

includeddirectvictims,relativesofvictims,relativesoftheoffendersandindirectvictimswho

witnessedoffencesfirsthand.InSTPlettersmaybewrittenattheendoftheprogramme,while

intheVEP,offenderswritetwoletterstothevictimsoneatthestartoftheprogrammeandthe

otheraftertherole-reversalexercise.

72STPvictimsarevolunteersthatarenotthedirectvictimsoftheoffenderstheyparticipateinthegroupwith;however,whetherconsideredvictimsorcommunityrepresentatives,theRJorientationcouldbeconsidered‘mostly’or’relational’.


79

UponcompletionoftheVEP,offendersreceiveareportwrittenbythefacilitators,basedon

theirparticipation,comprehensionoftheprogrammeconcepts,theirdistortions,development

andapplicationofskills.Acertificateispresentedtothosethatparticipatethatcouldpotentially

besubmittedtotheparoleboardaspartoftheoffender’sdossier.TheSTPdidnotinclude

reportsattheendoftheprogramme,howeverallparticipantsalsoreceivecertificates.

WiththeSTP,offendersaregiventheopportunity,attheendoftheprogrammetooffer

symbolicactsofrestitution(Parker&VanNess,2010).‘Symbolicrestitutiontakestheformof

writingletterstotheoffender’svictimsandsharingthiswiththevictim-participants;drawingor

paintingpicturesrepresentinglessonslearnedortheoffender’sdesiretochange;offenders

writingandperformingsongsrelatedtotheissues,ormakinggiftsforthevictimssuchas

bookmarks,cardsorpaperflowers.ThefinalsessionoftheSTPbeingacelebration(‘breakingof

thebread’)oftheworkdone,invitationsarealsoextendedtoguests73-peoplethatdidnot

participateintheprogramme.

Ofvictimempathyprogrammes,whichboththeVEPandSTPare,Tickell&Akester(2004)

assert,“Theseprogrammesprepareoffenderstoparticipateinrestorativeprocesseswithor

withoutvictims.”(p.21).Intheexperimentalprogrammeofthisactionresearch,alloffenders

hadtoparticipateineithertheVEPorSTPasphaseoneprogrammes,beforebeingofferedthe

opportunity,iftheysochose,tomeetwiththeirdirectvictimsinarestorativejustice

conference.

RestorativeJusticeConferencing(RJC)

RJCinvolvesrepresentationfromallthosestakeholdersaffectedbyacrime–thevictim,the

offenderandtheirsupporters.Oneortwofacilitatorsarealsopresentandarerequiredtobe

73GuestsoftheSTPcelebrationsincludedCorrectionalstaff,membersofPrisonFellowship,WitnessCareOfficersandPolicepersonnel;aswellasvictimsandoffender-participantsfrompreviousgroups.AreporterfromtheRoyalGazetteattendedonegroup’scelebrationandwroteapieceontheprogramme(publishedon26thMarch2015–O.Johnston-Barnes‘OffendersandVictimsFacetoFace’p2)–thisarticlecanbefoundinAppendix4.Onlythoseparticipantsconsentingtobephotographedwereincluded.


80

equallysupportiveandrespectfulofallinattendance74.Priortotheactualconferencethereisa

lotofpreparationthatgoeson.

PreparationforRJCisparamount.Allparties(includingsupporters)areassessedforsuitabilityto

ensurereadinesstoparticipatebeforebeingbroughttogether.Thisshouldbedoneinsucha

waythatfacilitatorslistentotheparties’story,gaugecommunicationstylesandtheimpactof

theoffenceonthemandtheircommunityofsupport.Partiesshouldbepreparedfortheactual

encounterbyreducinganxietiesandensuringtherearenosurprisesregardingtheprocess.

Umbreit(2000)urgeshowever,thatthis“…isnotmeantto“script”theactualconferenceso

thatlittlegenuineemotion,includinganger,willemerge.”(p.5).Rather,thefacilitatorshould

createapersonalbutimpartialconnectiontoensurepartiesfeelsafetoengageinthedialogue

withminimalinterventionfromthefacilitator(Umbreit,2000).

Further,towhatcouldbereferredtoasaone-offRJC,whereconsiderednecessaryor

responsivetoculturalorcommunityneeds,amulti-methodapproachisencouraged(Umbreit,

2000;Bazemore&Umbreit,2005).Umbreit(2000)proposesuseoftwo-phaseconferencing.

Thisprocessreflectsameetingbetweenthedirectorprimaryvictimsandtheoffenderor

offendersengagingindialoguetogether;andthenafterabreaktheconveningofalarger

conferenceincludingsupportersandcommunitymembers.Thismethodwouldbeidealfor

offenceswherethereareanumberofsecondary-victims(forexamplecommunitymembers

affectedbyanoffenceornumerousfamilymembersoftheprimaryvictim).

TheScript,Agreement&Gathering

TheInternationalInstituteforRestorativePractices(IIRP)publishascript75forfacilitatoruse

whichconsistsofaseriesofopen-endedquestionstoencourageaffectivedialogueand

generateopportunityforreparation.Thescriptisdevelopedspecificallyforconferences

concerningcriminaloffenceswheretheoffenderacceptsresponsibilityandthereare

74“Despitetheproliferationofrestorativejusticeprogrammes,relativelylittleattentionhasbeengiventotheissueofaccreditationorcertificationoffacilitatorsandmediators.”(UN2006,p49).Inthecurrentresearchexperiment,registeredtrainers’(ofwhichtheresearcherwasone)withtheInternationalInstituteforRestorativePractices(IIRP)trainedfacilitators.FacilitatorswerestaffpersonnelfromtheBermudaDoCandBermudaPoliceService(BPS).

75TerryO’Connell1991–acommunity-policingsergeantinAustraliadevisedthescript(Wachteletal,2010).


81

identifiablevictims(Wachteletal,2010).Thescripthelpsfacilitatorsremainfocusedamidstthe

emotionalprocessingofparticipants.Wachteletal(2010)reportonresearchthathasbeen

conductedand“…consistentlydemonstratedhighratesofparticipantsatisfaction,perceptions

offairnessandoffendercompliancewithconferenceagreements(McCold&Wachtel,1998;

Moore&Forsythe,1995;Umbreit&Fercello,1998,1999).”(p.178)basedontheuseofthe

script.

Thescriptseparatesthe‘deedfromthedoer’,firstaskingtheoffenderstostatewhathappened,

afterthefacilitatorsetsouttheultimatepurposeoftheconferencetorepairtheharmcaused.

Emphasisisgiventotheincidentthatoccurredspecifyingdate,placeandnatureoftheoffence.

Itismadeexplicitinthescriptthatthepurposeoftheconferenceisnottodecidewhetherthe

offenderisgoodorbad,butrathertoexplorehowpeoplewereaffectedandhowreparation

canoccur.

Offendersspeakingfirsthasafour-foldeffect–itallowsfortheoffendertotakeresponsibility,

mitigatesanydefensivenessorrescuingtendencyoftheoffender-supporters,itcaneliminate

anypreconceptionsofthoseinattendanceandhelpreducethevictim’sanxietiesoranger

(Wachtel,etal,2010).Aftertheoffenders,victimsareaskedquestions,thenthevictim-

supportersandthentheoffenders-supporters.Thefocusthenturnstotheagreementphase.

Theoffenderisaskediftheyhaveanythingfurthertheywanttosay–whichoffersthemthe

opportunitytoextendanapologyifonehasnotbeenofferedbythistime.Thenvictimsare

askedwhattheywouldlikefromtheconference.Theoffenderisaskedwhattheythinkabout

eachrequestofreparationthevictimrequests.Theagreementmustbemutuallyagreed(the

offendershouldnotfeelobligatedtojustacceptthevictims’requests).

Beforetheconferenceisclosedthefacilitatorofferstheparticipantsanopportunityforanyfinal

remarks;andthentheconferenceisclosedbythefacilitatorthankingeveryonefortheir

contributionsandinvitingthemtopartakeinrefreshments.76Thisgivestheparticipantstimeto

interactinformallywhiletheagreementiswrittenup,andduringwhichtimetheoffenderand

otherappropriateparticipantssigntheagreementandreceivecopies.

76“1.Allowtimeattheendofthemeetingforinformaldiscussionbetweenparticipants,andatimeforreflectionfollowingtheendoftheformalmeeting,ideallywithrefreshmentsavailable.2.Remainpresentthroughout...bealerttosignificantfurtherexchanges…ofrestoration…(forexample,arequesttostayintouch).(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011,p18).


82

Implementationoftheentireschemeiscoveredinthefollowingsectionofthischapter,

whichmeetstheresearchobjective–

• TodrawonresearchandpolicyguidancetoclarifyhowRJshouldbeimplemented

withinacorrectionssetting.

SchemeDevelopmentandBestPracticeGuidance

TheschemeinBermudawassetupusingguidanceofbestpracticefromanumberofsources.77

Suchconsiderationsalsoinformedtheethicsapplicationfortheresearch.

TheNationalOffenderManagementService(NOMS)intheirpublication‘Wait‘TilEight’An

EssentialStart-upGuidetoNOMSRJSchemeImplementation(2013)provideguidanceand

materialsforRJimplementationofconferencingpractices.Theyadvise,inaccordancewiththe

systemintheUKthattoestablishascheme,amanagementandplanninggroupareestablished,

thatcanbecomeamulti-agencysteeringgroup.InBermudatheresearcher,tooktheleadin

developingaprogrammewiththeassistanceofotherstafffromtheDoC.Oncethefirstphaseof

theschemewasunderway(deliveryoftheVEPandSTP),withPrisonFellowshipBermuda

contractedtoprovidetheirprogramme,theBermudaPoliceService(BPS)wereinvitedtojoin

thescheme.TheDoCandBPSCommissionerssignedaMemorandumofUnderstanding.Contact

wasmadewithNGOsinthecommunitythatcouldprovidecounsellingtovictimsand

supporters,ifneededpost-conference.78Contactwasalsomadeandadvicesoughtfrom

governmentandnon-governmentagenciesthatcouldprovideinputtotherightsandlegislation

forvictimsandoffenders.79

Inaccordancewithguidance,acaseflowchartwasdevelopedwithconsiderationto

assessmentsofeligibilityandsuitabilityandcriteriaforcaseidentification(NOMS,2013).Asthe

77GuidanceofbestpracticewasprimarilytakenfromtheRestorativeJusticeCouncil(2011);theUnitedNations(2006);theNationalOffenderManagementService(2013);Wachteletal(2010)andUmbreit(2000).78TheagenciescontactedandagreeabletoprovidingsupporttovictimsweretheWomen’sResourceCentreandtheCentreAgainstAbuse.Supportforinmatespost-conference,wouldbeprovidedbyexistingDoCstaff–SocialWorkers,PsychologistandChaplains.79ThisincludedtheHumanRightsCommission,CentreforJusticeandtheDepartmentofPublicProsecutions.


83

schemebeingintroducedwasnewtoBermuda,asapilotstudy,certainoffenceswereexcluded

(thisisdescribedfurtherinthenextchapter,underresearchparticipants).Needlesstosay,

therearesomerelationshipsandoffencesthatcreatepowerimbalancesbetweenvictimsand

offenders,andthiscangiverisetorepeatvictimization.Obviouscaseswereexcludedfromthe

pilotphaseoftheresearch(e.g.sexualabuseanddomesticviolence).80

Nonetheless,assessmentswerestillmadeofpotentialpowerimbalancesineachcasefor

“presenceofanycomplexissuesofintimidationandvulnerability”.(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,

2011,p11).Protocolsweredevelopedandriskassessmentswereconducted,thisincluded

securitychecksofprevious(criminal)historybetweenpeopleparticipatingintheSTPor

conferences.Asperguidance,anysafetyconcernswererecordedandtobemanaged,ifrisks

couldnotbemanagedface-to-faceinterventionswouldnotbeproceededwith(Restorative

JusticeCouncil,2011;NOMS,2013).However,alternativeinterventionswouldbeoffered.

TheBPStrainedconferencefacilitatorswouldmakethefirstcontactwithvictimsinthe

communitybytelephone;nomentionwouldbemadeatthistimeofaface-to-facemeetingwith

theoffender(Wachtel,etal,2010).Ifvictimswereagreeableameetingwouldbearrangedwith

thefacilitators(andresearcher).TheRestorativeJusticeCouncil(2011)adviseinpreparationof

RJprocessesandfacilitatingasaferestorativeprocess,thatfacilitators“Communicatewith

individualsthroughouttheprocess…”(p13).Theschemeusedleaflets,ofwhichtemplateswere

providedbythe‘WaittilEight’publication(NOMS,2013)togiveouttoparticipantsof

conferences,andtheresearcherpreparedaResearchBackgroundPaperthatcouldbegivento

allparticipantsofthescheme(seeAppendix2foracopyoftheResearchBackgroundPaper).

Clearinformationwasprovidedtoparticipantsthroughouttheprocess;andparticipants’

opinionsoftheinformationtheyreceivedwouldbegatheredaspartofthepost-conference

questionnaire(aswellasposttheVEPandSTPprogrammes).

Guidanceadvises–“Assessthelikelihoodofstrongemotionsorconflictduringthemeeting,and

ensureyouhaveaplaninplaceforseparatemeetings,ortimeoutduringthemeeting,should

thisbeneeded.”(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011,p15).TheCouncilalsoadviseonselectingan

80“MinistryofJusticeguidancestatesthatrestorativejusticeshouldnotnormallybeusedincasesof:“Domesticviolenceduetotheriskofongoingharm…sexualoffences,unlessavictimofsuch[an]offencerequestsarestorativejusticeactivityandsuitablyexperiencedandskilledfacilitatorsareavailable.”(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2015b,p8)


84

appropriatevenue;informingandobtainingconsentforobservers.Intheschemeall

conferencesduringthepilotphaseweretobeheldattheDoCasonlyconvictedprisonerswould

participateandparticipantswereinformedofthis.Permissionwassoughtfortheresearcherto

observetheconferencesandanyotherpersonnelnecessaryforsafetyreasons,orrequested,

werediscussedwithallinvolved.

TheRestorativeJusticeCouncilgivesguidanceforallstagesoftheprocess,aswellasforindirect

processes;allofwhichwastakenintoconsiderationinthedevelopmentandimplementationof

thescheme.

Thischapterprovidedinformationonthemaininterventionsthatformedpartoftheaction

researchandhighlightedthedifferencesbetweenthetwo(VEPandSTP)phaseone/prerequisite

programmesforconferencing.WhilsttheSTPcouldbeconsideredarelationallyrestorative

interventioncomparedtotheVEPbecauseitbrings(unrelated)victimsfromthecommunityand

offenderstogether,creatinganimmediatepotentialforreductionofharm;theVEPwas

expectedtoallowforanin-depthassessmentoftheactualcrimeandsuitabilityoftheoffenders

forconferencing.Thedifferencesbetweenthetwoprogrammeswasimportantastheywere

beingexaminedtoassesstheireffectivenessinpreparingoffenders–totakeresponsibility,

increaseempathyfortheirvictimsandbemotivatedtomakereparation.Inasmallislandsuch

asBermuda,thepotentialforunrelatedvictimstooffenderswouldbeunlikelytoprevailfor

long.However,withtheChristianfaithbeingmostdominantthiswasalsoexpectedtohavean

influence.Itwouldbeimportanttoassessifthedifferencesbetweentheprogrammeswere

significant.Thechapterendedwithasynopsisoftheoveralldevelopmentoftheinitiativeand

adherencetobestpractice,thenextchaptersetsoutdetailsonthemethodologyofthe

research.


85

v CHAPTER5–METHODOLOGY

“Oftenwhenrestorativejusticepracticesareusedinprison,they’reinitiatedbypeoplefromtheoutside.”(Toews,2006,p72)

Introduction

Thisthesishasdiscussedrestorativejustice(RJ)inlightofthegrowingtheoreticalandempirical

research.IthasalsobroughtBermudaintofocusonissuesofcrime,thesocialandpolitical

landscapeanditscriminaljusticesystem(CJS).Theobjectivesofthisthesisnecessitates

empiricalresearchinordertoaddresstheaimofhowRJcanworkforvictimsandoffendersin

Bermudainregardstothepotentialforreductionofharm,increasingempathyandasan

additiontotheexistingsystem.Canprogrammesdesignedtohelpincreaseempathywith

incarceratedoffendersachievethataim;andcantheoverallinitiativehelpvictimstohealand

feelsafer.Todothistheresearchevaluatesthreecompatiblebutdistinctinterventions,(a

VictimEmpathyProgramme(VEP),SycamoreTreeProject(STP)&RJConferencing)thatwere

describedintheprecedingchapterandthatcouldbesaidrepresentthethreesuggested

degreesofrestorativeorientationinpractices(partial,mostlyandfull,respectively-McCord,

2000)discussedinthepreviouschapter.

Specificallythischapterdescribesthemethodsusedtoobtaindataforthefollowingobjectives

oftheresearch:

• ToexploretheexperienceandeffectsofanexperimentalprogrammeofRJforvictims

andoffendersinBermuda;and

• Toexplorevictims’andoffenders’opinionsoftheexistingcriminaljusticesystem’s

managementoftheircases,andingeneral.

Thetheoreticalframeworkprovidessupportforthechosenmethodologyemployedandthe

specificimportanceofreflectivereporting.Thischaptersetsouttherationaleforthemixed-

methodapproachthatwastakenanddiscussessomeofthestrengthsandlimitationsofthe

methodschosen.Thechaptermakesreferencetosecondarydatacollectedandprovides

informationonethicalconsiderations.Assuch,researchinprisonsandtheresearcher’sposition

iselucidated,withreferencetotheusefulnessofvalidationstrategies.Thechapterconcludes


86

withadescriptionoftheselectionanddemographicsoftheparticipants,anddetailsofthedata

analysis.

TheoreticalFramework

PhilosophicalBasis&ResearchFramework

Constructionismformedtheepistemologyoftheresearch,astheresearcheralsoacknowledged

theirownconstructsoftheirwork(linkedtothemethodology).Recognisingtheimportanceof

knowledgeandrealitybeingrelationalandthereforevalue-laden.Further,contingentonsocial

experience,socialrelationsandinteractions.Asanepistemology,itsincorporationof

pragmatismalsoencapsulatedtheresearcher’sintentionwiththestudy,asitwastofocuson

“what’sworks”(Cresswell,2013).SpecificallySocialConstructionism,providedrecognitionof

culture,historyandsocietalimpacts.

Anoptimistic(ifnotsimplistic)statementofsocialconstructionismincompatibilitywiththe

aimsofRJisthat–“Iftheconversationcouldbechanged[orevenoccurinthefirstinstance],all

thatweconstructas“problems”couldbereconstructedas“opportunities”.Aswespeak

together,wecanalsobringnewworldsintobeing.”(Gergen,2009,p4).

SocialConstructionismrecognizesthatwhatisoftentakenforgrantedabouttheworldneednot

beandthatwhatisconsideredtobetruths,includingthosetruthspresentedbythescientific

world,shouldbescrutinized.Thosethatmakeclaimsoffacttotheworld,notleastscientists,

oftentryandclaimobjectivityandthatitiswithoutvalues.Yetsocialconstructionismargues

thatthosevaluesareconveyedeveninthelanguageusedtomaketheclaims(Gergen,2009).

Knowledgeisreceivedthroughlanguage.Knowledgeandlanguageevenofthegeneralpublicis

sociallyconstructedmeaning–“…whatwetaketobetheworldimportantlydependsonhow

weapproachit,andhowweapproachtoitdependsonthesocialrelationshipsofwhichweare

apart.”(Gergen,2009,p2).Whenpeoplelackknowledgeorcannotunderstandthelanguageof

asubjectmatter,theytendtojustexceptwhatisofferedbytheexperts.Thiscanputtheexpert

inverypowerfulpositionsandbeameansofmaintainingthepositionsofpeople,suchasthose

disadvantagedwithinasociety.


87

Itisarguedthatsocialconstructionneednotbedependentontradition,historyor‘whatthere

is’,asconstructscouldtakemanyforms(Gergen,2009).Onedivergencebetweensocial

constructionistsiswhatBurninghamandCooper(1999,inAndrews,2012)termstrictand

contextualconstructionism.Theformeracceptsthattherearealternativepossibilitiesto

constructsweuseandallhaveequalmeaningfulness(relativism).Andrews(2012)arguesthat

strictconstructionismisunhelpful,asitcannotguideknowledgeorpresentsocialphenomenon

becauseeverythingisconsideredpossible.Contextualconstructionismacceptsobjectivereality

–inotherwordstherearethingsthatexistoutsideoflanguage.Andrews(2012)provides

furtherclarityonthecontextual(realist)division–“Theideathatadiseasecanexistasan

independentrealityiscompatiblewiththesocialconstructionistview.Thenamingofdisease

andindeedwhatconstitutesdiseaseisarguablyadifferentmatterandhasthepotentialtobe

sociallyconstructed.Thisisnotthesameasclaimingthatithasnoindependentexistence

beyondlanguage.”(p42).AndrewsciteshowBerger&Luckman(1991)limitthediscussionof

socialconstructionofknowledgetoepistemologicalclaimsandmakenoontologicalclaims.

However,thedifferentbranchesofsocialconstructionismbringwithitdiscourse,whichby

virtuegenerateschallenges,questionsandalternatives.Suchastheclaimfavouredbythe

currentresearcher-thatindividualsarenotpassivetotheknowledgetheyacquire,butalso

possesspsychologicalprocessesthatinfluencehowtheyuseinformationandviewtheworld

(Burr,2003).Insuchdiscourseliestheabilityofsocialconstructionismtocreatechange,for

example,tosocialinequities.

TheSocialConstructionismwasappropriateastheepistemologyalsofortheimportanceof

constructsthatpeopleformofcrime,punishment(Gergen,2009)andjustice.Animportant

questionaskedinthestudy,ofconferencingparticipantswas-Whatdoesjusticemeantoyou?

ThiswasimportantastheRJliteratureandaimsquestionhowjusticeisconstructedandpetered

outbythestatesystemopposedtothestakeholdersofacrime.Thiswasfundamentaltothe

studyasanaim,wastoexplorevictimandoffendersopinionsoftheCJSinBermudaandthe

managementoftheircase.

Constructsarealsoimportanttohowtheoffendersviewthemselves,asidentifiedbyHagemann

(2003)whofoundoffendersneededtoresolvethreerelationshipswithRJ.Oneofthese

relationshipsbeingtheirinternalrelationshipwiththemselveswhichhastwodimensions-their


88

identityasanoffenderandasa"normal"person.Theconstructsofwhatconstitutesacrime,

victims,harm,punishment,victimization,responsibilityandreparationcouldallimpacttheir

experienceofRJ.Itwasalsoexpectedthattheessenceofthispotentialdiscourseatan

individual(andlocal)leveliswhatcouldcreatechangeandhealing,whilstalsocreatingempathy

asaresultofperspective-takingandunderstanding.

Asthetheoreticalperspective-Criticaltheorywasmostrelevanttothestudyandthesocietyin

whichthestudywasbeingconducted.Ashighlightedinchapter3,socialinequitiespersistin

Bermuda.Itwasintendedthatthestudycouldeducateandcreatechangeforthebettermentof

thesociety.Warmoth(2000)writingonsocialconstructionismarguesthattodealwithissues

suchaspovertyandviolence,thereshouldbeconsciousandcollaborativeeffortstocreatenew

socialinstitutions.Furthermore,suchchangecallsforunderstandingofthevaluesand

motivationsofindividualsandofthedynamicsofsocialandenvironmentalsystemsthese

individualslivein.

Theresearcherwasanagentoftheconstitutionthatchangewashopedwouldbecreatedin–

thecriminaljusticesystem,andassuchActionResearchformedthemethodologyofthis

thesis.81Actionresearchrecognizestheresearcherasasubjectiveentity,whichdoesnotallow

forobjectiveinterpretation.Asamethodology,ithasbeenusedtoinvestigateRJinanumberof

studiesindifferentcountries(e.g.Robert&Peters,2003;Shaplandetal,2008;Szego&Fellegi,

2013).

“Actionresearchisconcentratedonthedevelopmentandevaluationofnewpracticesandisalsofocuseduponthefinetuningorrestructuringofexistingpractices.…Atthesametime,thismethodhasalsowonapprovalduetoitsinclusivecharacter.Actionresearchallowsseveral(all)partiestobeactivelyinvolvedinthe(searchfora)solutiontotheproblem.”(Robert&Peters,2003,p96).

This‘inclusivecharacter’ofactionresearchappearstosharecommonalitieswithRJ.For

example,Frickedefinesactionresearchas“…empathyandlisteningwhilemeetingtheother,it

isacommitmenttobasicvalueslikehumancreativityanddemocraticparticipation,itisbased

ontheperceptionofsocialrealityasacontinuingprocesswithindividualsbeingsubjectsoftheir

history…”(citedinBrydon-Milleretal,2003,p14).Wachteletal’s(2010)SocialDiscipline

81Crotty(1998)viewsactionresearchasamethodology,Reason&Bradbury(2008,citedinDrake,2014)consideractionresearchasamethod.


89

WindowproposesthatthemosteffectiveapplicationofRJtocreatesocialchangeistowork

withpeople,opposedtoforthem.Thisiscompatiblewithhowactionresearchrecognizesand

respectstheknowledgepeoplehaveofthemselvesandtheissueswithintheircommunities

(Brydon-Milleretal,2003).

Mixed-Methods:Rational&ConceptualFramework

Toadequatelyevaluatetheinterventionprogrammesaspartoftheresearchobjectiveamixed-

methodapproachwasadoptedtoworkinhandwiththemethodology(McNiff&Whitehead,

2011).Thisthenvaluesthesubjectiveexperienceofthesubjects,acknowledgedtheimpactof

theresearcher’smotivationandbiases,recognizedtheimportanceofpoliticalagendas,hasan

emphasisonchangeandevaluativeessenceof‘whatworks’andhow.

Atthecentreofthe‘what’and‘how’researchquestionMackenzie&Knipe(2006)suggestthat

“...datacollectionandanalysismethodsarechosenasthosemostlikelytoprovideinsightsinto

thequestion…”(p196).Themethodsemployedmustallowforfirst-handaccountsofthe

experienceofrestorativejustice.Asshowninchaptertwo,studiesonrestorativejusticehave

usedarangeofmethodsfrominterviewing(e.g.Barr,2013;Bolivar,2013;DeMesmaecker,

2013;Umbreit&Vos,2000),surveysandquestionnaires(e.g.Barr,2013;Bolivar,2013;Feasey

&Williams,2009;Shaplandetal;2004;2006;2007;),focusgroups(e.g.DeMesmaecker,2013),

casestudy(e.g.Umbreit&Vos,2000),observation(e.g.Shapland,2007);andevenmeta-

analysis(Latimeretal,2001;Strangetal,2013;Umbreit,2005).Dick(1993)suggeststhatthe

mostimportantreasonforchoosingActionResearch,shouldbethatthesituationunder

researchrequiresresponsiveness,wherebyanalysisofdatashoulddeterminemodificationsas

thenextstep.Hefurtheradvocatesmultiplesourcesofdata,whichhereferstoasdialectic,

virtuallyequivalenttotriangulation.

Triangulationismostcommonlydefinedastheuseofmultiplemethodstomeasurethesame

phenomena,or“...multipleanddifferentsources,methods,investigatorsandtheoriesto

providecorroboratingevidence.”(Cresswell,2013,p251).However,ithasbeenarguedthat

researchclaiminguseofmethodologicaltriangulationhaslargelybeeninappropriate(Greeneet

al,1989).Greeneetal(1989)offeraconceptualframeworkformixed-methodevaluation

designsandproposefivepurposes-triangulation,complementarity,development,initiationand

expansion.Greeneetal(1989)originallydevelopedtheframeworkforevaluationofsocialand


90

educationalprogrammes.Itwasconsideredthatthisframeworkwouldalsoberelevanttothe

evaluationofrestorativejusticeprogrammes/interventions.

Themixed-methoddesignusedforthisresearchservedprimarilythepurposeoftriangulation

andcomplementarity.ThedifferencebetweenthetwopurposesaccordingtoGreeneetal

(1989)relatestothephenomenonbeingstudied.“Inacomplementaritymixed-methodstudy,

qualitativeandquantitativemethodsareusedtomeasureoverlappingbutalsodifferentfacets

ofaphenomenon,yieldinganenriched,elaboratedunderstandingofthatphenomenon.This

differsfromtriangulationintentinthatthelogicofconvergencerequiresthatthedifferent

methodsassessthesameconceptualphenomenon.”(Greene,etal,1989,p258).Greeneetal

acknowledgethatresearchinvestigationscanutilizemorethanonepurpose.Inotherwords,

mixed-methodsdatacanbeusedtocomplementeachotherbymeasuringdifferentaspectsof

thesamephenomenon(complementarity),ormixed-methodscanbeusedtoassessthesame

phenomenon(triangulation).

ThisresearchsoughttoexploretheexperienceofRJforvictimsandoffenders,byevaluatingthe

potentialofthreerestorativejusticeprogrammestoincreasevictimempathyandreduce

harm/aidhealing.Italsosoughttoexplorevictimandoffenders’opinionsoftheexisting

criminaljusticesysteminBermudaandmanagementoftheircase;asadifferentbutrelated

facetofthephenomenon,thepurposeof‘complementarity’wasthereforeappropriate.

“Thecomplementarityintentcanbeillustratedbytheuseofaqualitativeinterviewtomeasurethenatureandlevelofprogramparticipants’educationalaspirations,aswellasinfluencesontheseaspirations,combinedwithaquantitativequestionnairetomeasurethenature,level,andperceivedrankingwithinpeergroupofparticipants’educationalaspirations.Thetwomeasuresinthisexampleareassessingsimilar,aswellasdifferent,aspectsoftheaspirationsphenomenon.”(Greene,etal,1989,p258).

IntheiranalysisoftheoryandempiricalresearchGreeneetal(1989)alsohighlightedthatnotall

studiesemployingmixed-methoddesignfollowedthroughinthesamevainatthestageofdata

analysis.Inotherwordswhilstemployingmixed-methoddesigns,investigationsoftenseparate

qualitativefromquantitativedataandprovidesegregatedreporting.Whereappropriatespecific

triangulatedandcomplementarydataisanalysedandreportedsimultaneously.


91

EthicsI-Consent

TheLondonMetropolitanUniversity’sethicscommitteegrantedethicalapprovalforthestudy.

TheresearcherwasgrantedpermissiontoconducttheresearchbytheCommissionerofthe

DepartmentofCorrections(DoC)andtheministryresponsiblefortheDoC–theMinistryof

NationalSecurity(seeAppendix1foracopyoftheauthorizationletter).Thesewereobtained

beforeanycontactwasmadewithanyoftheparticipants.RJguidancealsoinformedoncontact

madewithparticipants.DoCprogrammesstaff/VEPfacilitatorsapproachedtheoffendersthat

wereofferedtheopportunitytoparticipateintheVEPandSTPprogrammes.Thesefacilitators

obtainedinformedconsentfromtheoffenderswhoagreedtoparticipateintheprogrammes

andseparateconsentfortheirinclusionintheresearch,beforetheresearcherhadanydirect

contactwiththemregardingtheresearch.PrisonFellowshipBermudarecruitedthevictimsthat

participatedintheSTPandgainedtheirinformedconsenttoparticipateintheprogramme.The

latterwasobtainedbeforetheresearcherspoketothemdirectlyabouttheresearchand

requestedtheirconsenttobeincluded.

Thechapternowpresentsthemethodsthatwereusedtocollectdata.

ResearchMethods

ChosenMethods

Themethodsusedintheresearchincludequestionnaires,apsychometric,in-depthsemi-

structuredinterviewsandobservation.Thequestionnairesandobservationswereconducted

witheachofthethreeinterventionsforbothvictimandoffender-participants,aswasuseofthe

psychometricquestionnairehoweverthismethodwasonlyadministeredtotheoffender-

participants.In-depthinterviewingwasreservedforthosewhoparticipatedintheRJ

conferencing;asonlyinthisinterventionwouldtheoffendersandtheirdirectvictimscome

together.


92

Thetablebelowillustratesthemethodsusedwitheachintervention

Subjects↓ ProgrammeInterventionsVictimEmpathy SycamoreTree RJConferencing

Offender-participants

CRIME-PICSIIPre&PostQuestionnaires

CRIME-PICSIIPre&PostQuestionnaires

CRIME-PICSIIPre&PostQuestionnairesStructuredInterviews

Victim-participants

Pre&PostQuestionnaires

Pre&PostQuestionnairesStructuredInterviews

Researcher Nonparticipant-to-participatoryObservation

Nonparticipant-to-participatoryObservation

Nonparticipant-to-participatoryObservation

Questionnaires

Questions&Design

Onepairofquestionnaireswasdesignedfortheoffender-participantsoftheVictimEmpathy

andSycamoreTreeProjectphase-oneinterventions(4questionnaires).Onepairdesignedfor

thevictim-participantsoftheSycamoreTreeProject(2questionnaires),andonesetforthe

offendersandvictimswhoparticipatedintheRJconferences(4questionnaires).Themajorityof

questionnaireitemswasreflectedacrossallthequestionnaires,andrequiredbothquantitative

andqualitativeresponses.

Thequestionnairesalsotookintoaccounttime-intervals-pre-interventionandpost-

intervention.Forexample,apre-interventionquestionasks–Howdoyoufeelaboutbeing

contactedtoparticipateintheprogramme?Bythepost-interventionstage,theitembecame–

Howdoyoufeelnow,aboutbeingaskedtoparticipateintheprogramme?

Thetablebelowillustratesthecategoryofquestions,preandposteachofthethree

interventionsastheyweredescribedonthequestionnaires.

QuestionnaireDomains

Pre SectionA-asksquestionsaboutyourviewsandopinionsoftheCriminalJusticeSystem.

SectionB-asksquestionsaboutyourcaseandexperiencewiththeCriminalJusticeSystem.

SectionC-asksquestionsaboutyourknowledgeofRestorativeJusticeandmotivationtoparticipateintheprogramme/conference.


93

Post SectionA-asksquestionsaboutthepreparationfortheprogramme/conference.

SectionB-asksquestionsabouttheprogramme/conferenceitself.

SectionC–asksquestionsaboutyourtimesincetheprogramme/conferencereflectingback;andyourgeneralviewsofrestorativejusticenowyouhaveparticipatedinaprogramme/conference.

Manyquestionnaireitemswereadoptedfrompastempiricalresearch(e.g.Miersetal,2001;

Shaplandetal,2007)orbasedontheoreticaldiscourse;whichwouldallowforexplorationof

attitudesamongstaBermudianpopulation.

Thequantitativequestionnaireitemsusedafive-pointLikertresponseformat(e.g.strongly

agree,agree,neitheragreeordisagree,disagree,stronglydisagree)82.Otheritemsusedless

responsecategories(3,4)andmoredichotomouscategories(i.e.yes,no)thatarepermissibleif

thereisgoodrationaleforreducingthenumberofresponses(Dudley,2005;Lewin,2005).These

itemsaimedtoexploretheopinionsandviewsoftheparticipants.

Anumberofopen-endeditemswereincludedinthequestionnaire,forthepurposeofobtaining

qualitativedatafrombothsetsofsubjects(offendersandvictims)acrossbothtimeframes(pre

andpost-intervention).Thesequestionsaimedtoexploreparticipants’motivationand

subjectiveexperienceoftheinterventions.

Obtainingbothquantitativeandqualitativedatafrombothparticipantgroupswouldallowfor

triangulatedandcomplementaryanalysis.

AdministrationandConsent

Thequestionnaireswerecompletedbytheparticipantsbutadministratedbytheprogramme

facilitatorsoftheVEPor,inthecaseofvictim-participantsbytheresearcher.Thefacilitators

wereprovidedwithinstructionsandtoldtoansweranyquestionsthattheparticipantsmay

havehadwithoutprejudicingtheirresponses.Offender-participantswerealsoaffordedthe

opportunitytowithdrawfromparticipatingintheresearchiftheysochose.Consentto

82IntheCarifio&Perla(2007)papertheypresentwhattheycall,misunderstandings,mythsandurbanlegendsaboutLikertscalesandLikertresponseformats.ThequestionnairesconstructedforuseinthisthesiswereessentiallybasedonaLikertresponseformat.However,Carifio&Perlaarguethatitem-by-itemLikertresponseformatsshouldnotbedisembodiedfromthemacrolevelmeasurementofLikertscales,despitethisusehavingbecomecommonplacepractice.


94

participateintheresearch,wasrequestedfromtheoffendersfollowinginitialconsentto

participateintheprogrammes.Therewasthereforealapseintimebetweentheparticipants

consentingtoparticipateandactualcompletionofthequestionnaires.Thislapsemeantthatthe

offender-participantshadtimetoreconsidertheirinitialconsent.

Administrationofthequestionnaireswiththeconferencinginterventionfollowedasimilar

procedurealthoughtheresearcherwasmoreinvolvedatthisstagewithallparticipants.The

researcheradministeredthequestionnaireswiththevictim-participantsoftheSTP.

Aresearchbackgroundpaperwasprovidedtotheparticipants(seeAppendix2)andleafletson

eachoftheinterventions(includingtheRJconferencing-seeAppendix3)83.Allparticipants

wereadvisedthatdecliningtobeinvolvedintheresearchwouldnotpreventthembeingableto

participateintheprogrammes.

Piloting

Forthepurposeofpilotingthequestionnairetheresearcherselectedtwooffenders,oneofwho

hadpreviouslyrequestedtheopportunitytoengageinaRJconferencewiththevictimsofhis

offence.84Basedonthefirstoffender’sfeedback,someminorcorrectionsweremade.

Afterthefirstpilot,theresearcherapproachedthesecondoffender.Althoughthisoffenderdid

notsuggestanyissuescompletingthequestionnaire,theresearchernotedhisresponsetothe

questionregardingmotivationtoparticipateintheprogramme.Theoffenderstatedtheir

reasoningasbeing“BecauseIwasaskedtodotheprogramme...”Theresearcherdidnot

questiontheoffenderontheirresponsebutaskedtheprogrammefacilitatorstocheckoutthe

offender’smotivationwhenbeingassessedforsuitabilitytoparticipate.Thissecondoffender

hadbeenverykeentohavetheresearcherfacilitatetheprogrammehewouldbein.When

assessedbythefacilitators,thesecondoffenderinformedthemthathismainmotivationfor83TheVEPinformationleafletwasdesignedbythePsychologyIntern;theSTPleafletbyPrisonFellowshipBermudaandtheRJConferenceleafletsbytheresearcher,basedonexamplesprovidedinthe‘WaitTilEight’publication(NOMS,2013).84Thisoffender-participantwasallocatedtotheSTPandthesecondpilotoffender-participantwasallocatedtotheVEP;theseoffenderswerematchedforthenatureoftheiroffence.Thefirstpilot-offender,wastheonlyoffenderofallthosethatparticipatedintheactionthattheresearcherhadpriorprofessionalcontactwith.


95

participatingintheprogrammewasforthepurposeofimpressingtheparoleboard.Thiscanbe

acommonextrinsicmotivationformanyincarceratedoffenders.Atthistimethefacilitators

remindedtheoffenderthatparticipationwasnottobeusedforthepurposeofparole;the

offenderstatedthathestillwantedtoparticipate.

Thefirstgroupofsixvictim-participantsidentifiedfortheSTPactedasthepilotgroupforthe

victim-questionnaires.Whathadnotfirstoccurredtotheresearcherwasthatnotallofthe

victims(identifiedfortheSTP)wouldhavehadacourtcase,astheiroffenderswerenever

identified.Onthebasisofthisacoupleofamendmentsweremadetothepreandpost

questionnairesforthevictims.

Psychometrics:MeasuringEmpathyinOffenders

AstheaimoftheresearchwastoexplorethepotentialforRJtoincreaseempathyinoffenders,

thiswasmeasuredquantitativelyusingtheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometricquestionnaire.

TheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometricwasdevelopedbyFrudeetalin1994andiswidelyusedasa

standardizedmeasureofchangeforagenciesworkingwithoffenders.Since2003itwasadopted

intheUKasoneofeightmeasurestoevaluatenationallyaccreditedoffendingbehaviour

programmes(Feasey&Williams,2009).Feasey&Williams(2009)usedtheCRIME-PICSIIintheir

assessmentoftheSTPprogrammeandfoundasignificantattitudinalchangeinoffenderspost-

programme.

Itisusedtomeasurechangeinoffender’sattitudetooffendingandisthereforeusedpreand

postintervention.Itconsistsof20questionnaireitemsanda15-itemproblemsinventory(the

lattercomponentwasnotusedforpurposesofthestudy).Responsestotheitemsprovide

scoresthattranslateinto5scales,representedinthetablebelow.


96

CRIME-PICSII ScaleDescriptionGeneralAttitudetoOffending(GScale)

Measurestheoffender’sgeneralattitudetowardsoffending.Lowscoresindicatinganattitudethatoffendingisnotanacceptablewayoflife.

AnticipationofRe-Offending(AScale)

Measurestheoffender’santicipationofre-offendinginthefuture.Lowscoresindicatingaresolvenottoreoffend.

VictimHurtDenial(VScale)

Measuresthedegreetowhichtheoffenderacknowledgestheharmcausedtothevictimoftheiroffence.Lowscoresindicatevictimempathy,asanacceptanceofharmcausedtovictimsbyoffending.

EvaluationofCrimeasWorthwhile(EScale)

Measuresthedegreetowhichtheoffenderviewscrimeasworthwhile.ALowscoreindicatesaviewthatthecostsofcrimeoutweighthebenefits.

PerceptionofCurrentLifeProblems(PScale)

Measuresthenumberofproblemareastheoffendersee’sthemselvesashaving.Thelowerthescorethelessproblemareasidentified.However,higherpostscoresmayreflectincreasedproblemrecognition.

OfmostrelevancetotheresearchwastheVscaleoftheCRIME-PICSIIthatmeasuresvictim

empathy.

The20questionnaireitemsconsistofstatementsthatrespondentsarerequiredtoindicate

whethertheyagreeordisagreewith,usinga5-point(Likert)scale(‘stronglyagree’to‘strongly

disagree’).Thepsychometricwasadministeredbytheprogrammefacilitators(alongwiththe

questionnaires)usingstandardizedinstructionsandself-completedbytheoffender-participants

ingroups.Thefacilitatorsassistedanyparticipantsthathadliteracydifficultiesindividually.The

computerizedCRIME-PICSIIScoringProgramwasutilizedforeachrespondent’squestionnaire.

OffenderprofilesusingtheCRIME-PICSIIcouldalsohelpdetermineselectionofparticular

offenderstothetypeofprogrammemostappropriateforthem(Frudeetal,2013).Theauthors

providethealphacoefficient,whichmeasurestheinternalreliabilityofeachscale.With0.70

andaboveindicativeofgoodinternalconsistencytheauthorsnotethathighalphacoefficients

canbereflectiveofthenumberofitemsineachscale(Frudeetal,2013).Thetablebelow

illustratesthenumberofitemsineachscaleandalphacoefficientvalues.85

85WhileScaleEdoesnotmeetthealpha“adequacy”criterion,theauthors’emphasesthatthefouritemssignificantlycorrelate;howeverresultsfromthisscaleshouldbetreatedwithcaution(Frudeetal,2013).


97

CRIME-PICSIIScales No.ofItems AlphaCoefficient

GeneralAttitudetoOffending(GScale)

17 .76

AnticipationofRe-Offending(AScale)

6 .75

VictimHurtDenial(VScale)

3 .73

EvaluationofCrimeasWorthwhile(EScale)

4 .55

PerceptionofCurrentLifeProblems(PScale)

15 .83

Test-RetestReliabilityandTestSensitivityarealsometbyallthescales,despiteachangein

scoresbetweeninitialtestsandre-testtimesbeingexpectedduetotheimpactofan

intervention.ThewidespreaduseofCRIME-PICSIIisevidenceofitsgoodfacevalidity;andithas

concurrentvalidity.Forexample,theauthorspointoutthatscalesG,A&Eareableto

discriminatebetweenoffenderswithhigherriskscoresforreoffending.LowscoresinscaleV

(greateracknowledgmentofharmcausedtovictims)whichisofmostrelevancetothisstudy,

wasfoundtobereportedsignificantlymoreoftenwithoffenderswhohadexperienceda

custodialsentence.Theauthorshighlightthatthis“...isofcourselikelytoreflectthetypeof

offencecommitted.”(Frudeetal,2013).Furthertheauthorsreportthatpertainingtothe

validityofCRIME-PICSIIitshowsdifferencesinscoresonallscalesforthreetypesofoffending

a)thoseagainsttheperson,b)propertyoffencesandc)motorvehiclerelatedoffences.

Areductionbetweenpreandpostscoresindicatesanimprovementintheoffender’sattitude

(withtheexclusionofthePscale).86Therawscoreswereutilizedinthisresearchtoexamine

differencesbetweentheoffenders’preandpostinterventionscoresindividually,and

collectivelybetweentheprogrammes(VEPandSTP).Forthoseoffendersthatparticipatedina

conference,theywerealsoadministeredthepsychometricforathirdtime–post-conference.

Itwasarequirementofprogrammeparticipation(VEP&STP),aspermostprisonprogrammes,

thattheoffenderscompletepreandpostpsychometrics/questionnaires(i.e.CRIME-PICSII)as

partoftheprogrammeandthattheresultsremainonfileaspropertyoftheDoC.Thiswas

86Individualscalescoresallowforparticularfacetstobetargeted,whileaggregatedscoresacrossgroupsofoffenderscanbeusedtoevaluategeneralpatternsofchange,orusedintherawscoreform(Frudeetal,2013).


98

madeexplicittotheoffender-participantshoweverthattheycouldrefuseconsentfortheir

resultstobeusedaspartoftheresearch.Theoffender-participants’wereinformedofthis,as

partoftheinstructionsgivenatthetimeofcompletingtheforms.

“ItisimportantforfutureresearchtoincludequalitativemeasuresoftheamountofharmthatoffenderscausebeforeandaftertheyengageinanRJC[restorativejusticeconference].…Asnewplaces…attempttoconductexperimentalevaluationsofRJs,thechancetomeasurethe

benefitsinthiswayshouldnotbemissed.”(Strangetal,2013).

Interviews

“Weconductqualitativeresearchwhenwewanttoempowerindividualstosharetheirstories,heartheirvoices,andminimizethepowerrelationshipsthatoftenexistbetweenaresearcherandtheparticipantsinastudy.”(Cresswell,2013,p48).

Theneedforaqualitativemeasuresuchasinterviewingwasimperativetothestudyforthevery

reasonsCresswellhighlights.Therewaseveryneedtoempowertheparticipants,notjustfor

researchpurposes,butalsoforthepurposeofaction.AcentralpremiseofRJistogiveavoice

tovictims,andoffenders,wheretheconventionaladversarialCJScanstealtheircases.Itwas

employedtoalsominimisethepowerrelationshipbetweentheresearcherandoffenders.As

guidanceonRJpractice,theRestorativeJusticeCouncil(2011)alsoadvisethatpractitioners–

“Providethepartieswiththeopportunitytodiscussopenlyandhonestlytheirthoughtsand

feelingsabouttherestorativejusticeprocessanditsoutcomes.”(p21).

InterviewDesignandQuestions

Fourinterviewschedulesweredesignedusingstructuredopen-endedquestionsforthosewho

participatedinaconference.Twoversionsforthevictimscorrespondedwiththepre-conference

(ISVPr)andpost-conference(ISVPo)stages;withtwosimilarversionsdesignedfortheoffender-

participants(ISOPr&ISOPo).

Kvale(1996)pointsoutthatquestionnairesincludequestionsaboutgeneralopinions,whichthe

interviewdoesnot,butratherelicitsdescriptionsofspecificsituationsandactionsequences.


99

Thevictiminterviewschedulesconsistedofquestionsdesignedtoinvestigatefirst-handthe

opinions,motivationandexperienceoftheparticipantsfromtheirperspective,suchas:

motivationforparticipatinginaconference(whichcouldalsobeusedtoinformontheir

readinesstoparticipate);theirunderstandingoftheconferencepurpose(whichcouldalso

informpractice)andtheirviewsandexperienceoftheCJS.Twointerviewsallowedfor

comparisonpostintervention,withadditionalquestionsrelatedtotheirexperienceofaRJ

conference.GuidanceonRJpracticehighlightstheneedtocheckoutvictims’readinesstomeet

withtheoffendersoftheircase.Theoffenderinterviewschedulesconsistedofsimilarquestions

asthoseforthevictims,exceptwithoppositefocus(e.g.“Howmuch,ifatall,doyouthinkabout

thepersonyouharmed?”).Similarlytothequestionsincludedinthequestionnaires,the

interviewquestionswerebasedontheoreticalandempiricalresearch(e.g.Miersetal,2001;

Shaplandetal,2007)andconductedface-to-face.

Advantages&DisadvantagesoftheFace-to-FaceInterviewingMethod

Whenconsideringamixed-methoddesignitispointedoutthatallmethodshavebiases,

limitations(Greene,1989),positivesandnegatives.Interviewscanbeconductedinanumberof

ways.Thisstudyutilizedface-to-faceinterviewingforonemainreason.Thegreatestbenefitof

face-to-faceinterviewingwastheinterviewer’sopportunitytoassesssocialcuesaswellasthe

verbal,occurringintimeandplace,inthesensethatresponsesaremorespontaneousand

withoutextendeddeliberation(Opdenakker,2006).Thiswouldbevitalfortheresearch,

enablingtheresearchertobeabletoaccesstheparticipants’storyasitnaturallyoccurredin

responsetothequestionsasked.Whilevictimsmayfinditdifficulttoexpresstheiremotions,

theymaybeopentotheopportunitytohaveavoiceandbeheard.Opdenakker(2006)suggests

fromreviewingfourmodesofinterviewing,thattheotheradvantagesofface-to-face

interviewingarethatagoodambiencecanbecreatedandterminationcanbemanagedthrough

socialcuessuchasshiftingpapersandturningoffthetaperecorder.Thisisinadditiontothe

explicitterminationbythankingtheintervieweeandaskingiftheyhaveanyfurtherremarks

relevanttothetopicorinterviewprocess.Theinvitationforremarkscanalsoleadtothe

emergentofawholenewareaofinformation(Wengraf,2001,inOpdenakker,2006).Equally,

theresearchercouldberesponsivetoanydisplaysofdiscomfortintheparticipants.Offenders


100

mayhavebeenguardedintheirresponsesandtrytodisguisesociallyundesirablethoughtsand

feelings.

Openakker(2006)suggeststhatinterviewereffectscanbediminishedwithuseofaprotocoland

interviewerawareness.Face-to-faceinterviewingisconsideredtobecostlyandtimeconsuming

whereothermethodscaneliminatethis(suchastelephoneinterviewing).Thestudywas

conductedintheislandsofBermudawithalandmassof21sq.miles,whichmeanttravellingto

conductinterviewsdidnothavetotakeplaceoveravastlandmass.Offender-participantswere

allincarcerated,servingsentencesfortheoffencethatwassubjecttotheinterventions;across

twocorrectionalfacilitiesatoppositeendsofthemainconnectedislands.

DataCollection–AudioRecording&Transcription

InterviewswererecordedusingaPhillipsVoiceTracerdigitalrecorder1700,withinformed

writtenconsentfromtheparticipants.TherecordingsweretranscribedusingtheDragon

NaturallySpeaking12–speechrecognitionsoftware.Participantswereinformedthatthe

recordingswouldbetranscribedomittinganyidentifiableinformation(i.e.suchasnames)and

thatoncetranscribedaudiorecordingswouldbedestroyed.

Themajorbenefitofaudiorecordingwasaccuracyofinformation.Openakker(2006)pointsout

thedisadvantageofaudiorecordingasbeingareducedlikelihoodofnotetaking,whichcould

createseriousproblemsiftherecordermalfunctionsortheinterviewerforgetstoturniton.To

reducethesepotentialissuestheresearcherprintedatthetopoftheinterviewscheduletwo

remindernotes1)toreconfirmconsentand2)toensuretherecorderwasturnedon.

“...face-to-faceinteractionisthefullestconditionofparticipatinginthemindofanotherhumanbeing,and...thatyoumustparticipateinthemindofanotherhumanbeing...toacquiresocialknowledge.”(Lofland&Lofland,1995,p16)

Asthischapterturnstoconsidertheemployedmethodofobservation,itisarguedthat

(participant)observationandintensiveinterviewingarethetwomostinterrelatedmethodsfor

achieving“naturalisticpreference”and“therichestpossible[qualitative]data.”(Lofland&

Lofland,1995).


101

Observation

Inordertofurtherevaluatetheprogrammesandinformonpendingreformandfuturepolicy,

theresearcherchosethemethodofobservationasanotherrichsourceofdata.Inthearticle

‘SettingStandardsforRestorativeJustice’Braithwaite(2002a)writesgenerallyabouttheneed

forconferences(unlikecourtrooms)beingclosedtothepublic.Thisheargueshelpsavert

stigmatizationanddominateddialogue,howevertakingintoconsiderationtheneedfor

accountabilityhestates“...itseemsespeciallyimportantforresearchers,critics,journalists,

politicalleaders,judges,colleaguesfromrestorativejusticeprogrammesinotherplaces,tobe

abletositinonconferencesorcircles(withthepermissionoftheparticipants)sotherecanbe

informedpublicdebateandexposureofinappropriatepractices.”(Braithwaite,2002a,p567).

Alsocentraltotheresearch,observationwouldallowtheresearchertogaindataregardingthe

participants’experienceoftheinterventioninthe‘actualtime’itplayedout.Inotherwords,the

questionnairesandinterviewsprovideddatabeforeandaftertheintervention,wherethe

methodofobservationwouldprovidedataduringtheintervention.

Theresearcherobservedtheinterventionsinitiallyasanon-participant.“Asagoodqualitative

observer,youmaychangeyourroleduringanobservation,suchasstartingasanon-participant

andthenmovingintotheparticipantrole,orviceversa.”(Cresswell,2013,p167).Cresswell

(2013)further,referstoconsideringthetimetomakethechangeover.Inthelastsessionofthe

STPprogrammesandattheendoftheconference,duringthecustomaryrefreshmentspace,

theresearcherchangedfromnon-participanttoaparticipantobserver,choosingthistimeto

engagewiththeparticipantsandlistentotheirexpressionsabouttheprocessandinterpersonal

exchanges.

Itisimportantintherecordingoffield-notesthattheresearcherisdiscrete,anddespite

participantsbeingawarethattheyarebeingobservedtheiranxietiesshouldnotbeincreased.

Lofland&Lofland(1995)refertotheactofinconspicuousjotting,andlayoutthesequenceof

mentalnotes,jottednotes(includingmemories)andfullfield-notes–“...thefundamental

concretetaskoftheobserveristhetakingoffieldnotes.”(Lofland&Lofland,1995,p89).This

processwasusedinthisstudy.

Attheoutsettheresearcherwasinterestedtoobserveconversationsbetweenpeople;seating

arrangementsintheprogrammes;tardinessandattendance;gesturesandexpressionsof


102

empathyandotheremotions,remorse/regret,change/expansion,healing,harmand

empowerment.Theresearcherwasinterestedinthedevelopmentanddynamicsofthegroups

andrepeatedoccurrencesthatoccurredwithinandacrossthegroups.Anobservational

protocolwasdevisedtorecordinformationlikedates,times,attendees,theduration,seating

plansandforjottednotes.

FocusGroups

FromearlyobservationsofthefirstVEPandSTP,theresearcherwasmotivatedtoconducta

focusgroupwiththeoffender-participantsfromeachofthetwoprogrammes;andsought

ethicalpermissionfromhersupervisorstodothis.Suchchangesarerecognizedamongst

researchers.Forexample,Sutrop&Florea(2010)state,“Particularlyqualitativeresearchmay

need“flexibleprotocols”,whereresearchisadaptedaccordingtoastepwiseapproach,

dependingoninterimfindingsfromfocusgroups,surveys,questionnairesetc.”(p24).Thiswas

alsoinkeepingwiththemethodology.

TheresearcherwastoldthatoneoftheSTPoffender-participantshadaskedtheVEPfacilitators

ifhecoulddotheVEPaftercompletingtheSTP.Hetoldthefacilitatorsthathehadbeenhearing

alotabouttheVEPfromtheothergroup-members;hewasapparentlydisappointedwhen

informedbythefacilitatorsthathecouldnotdotheVEPandhadquestionedwhyhecouldnot.

5offendersparticipatedinthefocusgroup–2participantsfromtheVEPand3fromtheSTP.87

Eachparticipantgavewrittenconsenttoparticipateinthefocusgroupandtothediscussion

beingrecorded.Datafromthefocusgroupwasanalysedalongwithallotherdatacollected.

TheResearcher&ResearchinPrisons

Asthisresearcherreadoftenacitybeingacommoncharacteristicofactionresearchers(Brydon-

Milleretal,2003),shesmiledandconsideredthatthisattributewasmuchofhermakeup.With

atenacitytorejectsomeoftheprinciplesandpoliticsinacademiathatgivesfavourtopractices

designedtobemore“scientific”overtheneedsoftheindividualsitstudies.Thistenacityis

87AthirdVEPoffender-participantrandomlyselectedbytheresearcherhadbeenescortedoutoftheestablishmentonamedicalappointment.


103

similarlyembracedbyUmbreit’s(2005)cryforpractitionersofRJtonotbeconcernedwith

specificmodelstothepointofneglectingstakeholdersneedsforsafedialogue.

Itisarguedthatreflectiveresearcherspositionthemselvesinaqualitativeresearchstudy.

Meaningthatresearchersconveytheirbackgroundinthemethodologysectionoftheirstudy

andhowitinformstheirinterpretationandwhattheyhavetogain(e.g.Cresswell,2013;Sutton,

2011).88

Sutton(2011)illustratedarelatedpointinhispaperwhenhereferredtotheearliest

ethnographiesofresearchintoprisonculture.SuttonreferstoClemmer’s‘ThePrison

Community’publishedin1940asthefirstcomprehensivesociologicalstudyofprisonculture

andClemmer’semploymentastheprisonsociologistinamen’sprison.Suttontalksmore

recentlyofRhodes(2004,inWashington)andCrewe(2007,intheUK)ashavingimmersed

themselvesintotheirrespectiveprisonenvironments,asemployeesinthoseinstitutions.The

currentresearcherhadextensive(over16years)experienceworkinginprisonswithinthree

differentcountriesfull-time89andhadbeenemployedasaforensicpsychologistwiththe

BermudaDoCtenmonthsbeforedatacollectionbegan.Overtheyearsshehadworkedwith

everypopulation–adultmen,womenandyoung-offenders;lifers,determinantsentencedand

remand.

Thisresearcher’smotivationforventuringintoacareerasaforensicpsychologistwastoactively

contributetothereductionofvictimsofcrime.Withthisimpetustheresearcherhadlongbeen

interestedinthepracticeofRJasameansofempoweringvictimsandholdingoffenders

accountableinawaythatreducedalienation.Theresearcher’smaindutiesatthetimeofthe

actionresearchweresupervisionandfacilitationofthesex-offendertreatmentprogramme(an

excludedpopulationoftheactionresearch),conductingrisk-assessments,providingone-to-one

therapeuticinterventions,stafftrainingandrecruitment.

Whilsttheresearcherviewedrehabilitationasnecessary,shewasalwaysaffectedbyoffenders’

perceptionsoftheimportanceofrehabilitationtoherasbeingnecessaryforheremployment.

88Sutton(2011)alsoadvocatesforquantitativeresearchersreflectingontheirexperiencesworkinginprisons.89TheresearcherhadalsobeencommissionedbytheForeignCommonwealthOfficetoconductassessmentsandtraininginthreeadditionalBritishOverseasTerritorieswhilstlocatedpermanentlyintheCaymanIslands.


104

Fewoffendersvaluedrehabilitationasameansofassistingtheminreducingtheirriskof

reoffending.Somewouldnotwanttorepeattheiroffending,somedid.Whatevertheintrinsic

motivation,therehadbeenfewoffendersintheresearcher’sexperiencewhowantedtobein

prison.Asaresultitwasusuallyextrinsicmotivations(atleasttostart)ofgainingparoleorother

privilegesthatreignedinprisoners’engagementwithrehabilitation.Withthisoftencomesthe

prisoners’projectionofresponsibilityfortheirincarcerationonto“thesystem”or“authorities”.

InrelationtotheUS,Noll(2003)talksaboutthisintermsofconstitutionalprotectionrequiringa

pleaofnotguiltybyanoffendertobeabletoinvokeconstitutionalrights;andthelawyers’

focusandprotectionofthoserightsfortheirclientagainstthepowerofthestate.AssuchNoll

arguesthatthisalsoinvokesdeterrencefrompersonalaccountability.Whilesocialinequities,

negativelifeexperiencesandotherenvironmentalfactorscontributetooffending;asLofton

(2004)assertsitisoftenacaseofthedisadvantagedoffendingagainstotherdisadvantaged

people.InBermudaithasbeenrecognizedthatthereisalso“self-sabotage”atplay(Lawrence&

Codrington,2014).Ineffortstoassisttherehabilitationprocess,theresearcherwasmotivated

toinvolvevictimsandthecommunityintheprocess.Manyoffendershadalsoexpressedtothe

researchertheirpastattemptsatlivinglaw-abidingliveshavingbeenhinderedbyanunforgiving

hostilecommunity;notonlyinBermudabutinherexperienceworkingasapsychologistinother

countries.

TheresearcherwasbornandraisedinSouth-EastLondonasafirstgenerationchild,toGhanaian

parentsofaworking-classfamily.Shegrewupcloselywithanumberofblackmenandwomen

whoasadolescentswereinvolvedinarangeofcriminalactivitiesincludingdruguse,dealing,

theft,burglary,vandalismandviolence.Shewasfortunatelysomewhatresilienttotheclaimsby

someoftheblackmalesespecially,thatasblackpeopletheywouldnotbeallowedtoaspire.

Muchliketheself-sabotagethatLawrence&CodringtonspeakofBermudians,thisbeingmore

pervasivetothepsycheoftheblackmalesthanfemales.Thisresearcher,howevernot

unaffectedbytheself-fulfillingprophecyofothersstereotypesofherandexperiencesofracism,

stillfeltthatshecouldassistthosethatthatgetcaughtupincriminalactivity,largelyasawayof

fulfillingothersexpectationsofthem.Shealsofeltmorallythatoneperson’spainand


105

disadvantagewasnojustification(althoughexplanatory)forhurtingothers.Thiswastheenergy

fortheworkandthehopeofthepotentialforRJtohelphealingfromcrime.90

Theapproachwasthentoheightentheawarenessofoffenderstotheplightofthoseaffected

bytheiractions,andcreatetheopportunityforthemtogiveback.Inthiswaytheir

responsibilitywouldnotbediminished,howevertheycouldexperienceredemptionanda

greaterunderstandingofhowtheirownsocialconstructsimpacttheirview.

Noll(2003)inhispaper“RestorativeJustice:OutliningaNewDirectionforForensicPsychology’

callsforpsychologistsincourtsandthecommunitytobecatalystsinestablishingRJinthese

areas.Headvocatesforensicpsychologistsasbeingwellpositionedandpossessingskillssuchas

programmedevelopment,supervision,andtraining,givingpresentationsandforbeing

practitionersofRJ.Thecurrentresearcherasaforensicpsychologistincorrectionswasalso

motivatedinthesamewayandwasbecomingincreasinglyfrustratedbytheshortcomingsof

herwork.Work,whichlargelyfocusedontheoffenderinisolationofotherstakeholders.

Theresearcherasaninsiderhadaccesstotheestablishmentandinformation.Itisarguedthat

theinsider-researcherlacksobjectivity(Aguiler,1981,citedinGreene,2014)thiswas

uncontestablewithregardstoaspectsoftheCorrectionsenvironmentthattheresearcher

wouldoverlookascustomary.However,theenvironmentwasnotunderstudy.Whatwasmore

compellingwastherelationaldynamicsandperceivedpowerimbalances,mostsignificantly

betweentheresearcherandoffender-participants.Itwaspossiblethattheoffendersmighttry

togainthefavouroftheresearcher,inanticipationoffutureengagement.

TheresearcherwascognizantofnotwantingDoCstaff(includingherself)tobeexcludedfrom

facilitatingconferencesonthebasisofsuggesteddifficultieswithimpartiality(e.g.Szego&

Fellegi,2013).Itwasconsideredimportanttothevalidityoftheresearch,basedonthe

researcher’sperspectivesharedabove,thatmeasuresweretakentoreducetheeffectsofher

positionasanemployeroftheDoC,especiallywiththeoffender-participants;albeit,inaction

research,theresearcher’spositionisacknowledged.

90Theresearcherisalsoacharteredcounsellingpsychologist.


106

ValidationStrategies:FurtherManagementofResearcherBias&Effects

Cresswell(2013)citesandquotes“Glesne&Peshkin(1992)[who]questionresearchthat

examines“yourownbackyard–withinyourowninstitutionoragency,oramongfriendsor

colleagues”...andtheysuggestthatsuchinformationis“dangerousknowledge”thatispolitical

andriskyforan“insideinvestigator”.”(p151).Tomanagethisconcernof‘in-house’or‘own

backyardresearch’,Cresswell(2013)recommendsmultiplestrategiesofvalidation(for

qualitativeresearch)toensureaccuracyandinsightofthefindings.Helistseightstrategies,the

firstthreeofwhichhesuggestsaretheeasiesttoemploy,mostpopularandcost-effective–(1)

triangulation;(2)memberchecking;(3)rich,thickdescription;(4)prolongedengagementand

persistentobservation;(5)peer-reviewordebriefing;(6)negativecaseanalysis;(7)clarifying

researcherbiasand(8)externalaudits.Hefurthersuggeststhatatleasttwostrategiesshould

beemployed;byandlargethecurrentresearchutilizedalleightstrategiesofvalidation.

Thischapteroutlines,inturn,thestrategiesthatCresswell(2013)proposes,andhowtheauthor

utilizedthesestrategies.

Detailedabovetriangulationwasemployedatallstagesofthestudy(design,datacollection,

analysis,interpretationandreporting).“Memberchecking[considered]themostcritical

techniqueforestablishingcredibility”(Lincoln&Guba,1985,inCresswell,2013,p252)isthe

processofvalidationthroughsolicitedparticipants’viewsofthecredibilityoffindingsand

interpretation(Cresswell,2013).Cresswellassertstheusefulnessofconveningfocusgroupsof

participantstoreview,notthetranscriptsorrawdata,butratherthepreliminaryanalysisof

descriptionandthemes,aswellaswhatmightbemissing.Theresearcherconvenedafocus

groupcomprisingofoffender-participantsfromthefirstVEPandSTPgroups.Thegroup

discussedthefindingsandprovidedfeedbackontheirexperiencesandthoughtsonthe

programmes.

“Rich,thickdescriptionallowsreaderstomakedecisionsregardingtransferability...becausethe

writerdescribesindetailtheparticipantsorsettingunderstudy...theresearcherenablesthe

readers...todeterminewhetherthefindingscanbetransferred...”(Cresswell,2013,p252).In

theanalysisandreportingoffindings,richdescriptionisprovidedwithoutjeopardizing

anonymityofparticipants.AdescriptionofthesettingunderstudywasprovidedinChapter3.


107

‘Prolongedengagementandpersistentobservation’issaidtohelpbuildtrustbetween

participantsandtheresearcher,andfortheresearchertodevelopunderstandingoftheculture,

andprovidesopportunitytocheckoutmisinformationcreatedbydistortionsofparticipantsor

researchers(Elyetal,1991;Erlandsonetal,1993;Glesne&Peshkin,1992;Lincoln&Guba,

1985;Merriam,1988;citedinCresswell,2013).Thisresearchsoughttoachievethismethodof

validationthroughuseofstudydesign(mixed-method),‘peerreviews’and‘memberchecking’.

Theresearcher,byvirtueofheremploymentwasimmersedintheprison;shesoughtcultural

knowledgeandunderstandingofBermudathroughherattendanceatlecturers(e.g.MPWalton

BrownlectureonimmigrationattheBermudaIndustrialUnionon03.12.13&a‘Structural

RacismWorkshop’attheHumanRightsCommission–22.01.14),readingandrelationships

(includingfriendships)withpeopleinthecommunity.TheresearcherattendedtheRestorative

JusticeWeekworkshopsandpanelpresentationsinOctober2013&2014.Asanon-Bermudian

theresearcheralsosoughtcriticalfeedbackfromtwoBermudiansonchapter3,whowerealso

familiarwiththeDoC.Theresearcherwasconsciousofwantingtoberespectfuloftheisland

anditscultureasanexpatriate.

Anothermethodofvalidationthatwouldbeemployedwas‘negativecaseanalysis’.The

researcherreportedonalldataandmadeitexplicitwhenspecificdatawasexcluded.‘Clarifying

ResearcherBias’waspartiallyachievedthroughthereflectiveaccounttheresearcherprovides

aboveinthischapter.Forthepurposeofvalidationitisvitalthatthereaderunderstandsthe

researcher’sposition,biasesandassumptionsthatcouldimpacttheinquiry(Merriam,1988;in

Cresswell,2013).Theresearcher’suniversitysupervisorsprovidedthe‘externalaudit’.

Theremainderofthechapterprovidesinformationonethics,selectionandparticipant

demographics.

EthicsII–ActionandResearch

Aconcernofresearchethicswaswhetherornotresearchmayleadtothedisclosureofillegal

activityorincriminatingevidence.Thiswasaveryobviousconcernasdisclosureofcriminal

activitywascentraltotheexperimentalprogramme.Onlyconvictedoffenderswouldbe

approachedtoparticipateintheinitiativeandresearch.Thelimitsofconfidentialityweremade

explicitontheconsentformsandoffenderswerealsoremindedverballytonotdisclosure


108

detailedinformationforanyoffencestheyhadcommittedbuthadnotbeenconvictedfor.

Victimswerealsorequestednottoasksuchinformationoftheoffenders.Therewasalsoriskof

participantsexperiencingdistressbyvirtueofparticipatingintheactionbeingresearched.

Basedonguidance,riskassessmentswereconductedtoensurethemanagementofany

potentialriskstoparticipants.Allparticipantsfortheconferenceswereassessedforsuitability

toparticipateinconferencing.91Theresearchermadecontactwithcounsellingservicesthat

couldbeaccessedbyvictims,andDoCstaffwouldbeavailabletoprovidesupporttothe

offenders.

Whileface-to-faceconferencinghasbeenfoundtobethemostsatisfactoryforparticipants,

guidanceadvocatesthatwhenaface-to-facemeetingisnotappropriatealternativesshouldbe

offeredsuchasshuttlemediationoranexchangeofletters(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011).

Thiswastobepartofthecurrentaction,andwherethevictimmaydeclineoroneoftheparties

optsout,analternativewouldbeoffered.

“Theguidancehasbeenstrengthenedtomakeclearthat,otherthanonsafetygrounds,

participationisaparticipant’schoice,notthatofthepractitioner.”(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,

2011,p6).Onthebasisofthisguidance,thefacilitatorsandresearcherwouldnotmakea

judgmentonwhohadbeenaffectedbythecrimeandwhowasnot.92Contactwouldbemade

withthedirectvictimsfirstanddependentontheirwishesandthoseoftheoffender,other

community/witnessvictimswouldbeconsulted.Bothvictimsandoffenderswereaskedwho

theythoughtshouldbeinvolvedintheirconference(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011).

Astheinitiativewasnewandonlyconvicted-offenderswereparticipating,theconferenceswere

tobeheldattheWestgatefacility.However,whenevertheriskassessmentdidnotidentifyany

safetyconcernsandthecorrectionssecurityandfacilityChiefwereinagreement,the

conferenceswouldbeheldinaunitexternaltotheestablishmentbuildingbutwithinthefacility

91Thereisplentyofguidanceontheelementsthatshouldformpartoftheassessment(e.g.NOMS,2002;RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011;Umbreit,2000;Wachteletal,2010)andthesewerefollowed.92However,thefacilitatorsandresearchermay“Assesswhoelseintheparticipants’circleshasbeenharmedbythecrime/incidentandmightbenefitfrombeinginvolved…”(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011,p14)andsuggestsuchindividualstothemainstakeholders.“Facilitatorsmayalsoinviteindividualswhodonotclearlyfallintothecategoryofvictim,victim-supporteroroffender-supporter,butwhohavebeenaffectedbytheincidentinsomeway–perhapssomeonewhowitnessedtheincidentoraninvestigatingpoliceofficer.”(Wachteletal,2010,p188).


109

estate.Withthisset-up,theconferencecouldalsoallowarrivalstobemanagedinsuchaway,

thatparticipantsdidnotallwaitinthesamearea,werenotleftaloneandhadaccesstosupport

andinformationasperguidance(RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011).

InformationSharingwithStakeholders

Theresearcherextendedinformationabouttheactionresearchtoanumberofagenciesand

hadmeetingswithanumberofstakeholdersincludingcommunityagenciesandnon-

governmentalorganizations,suchastheHumanRightsCommission,CentreforJustice,the

ParoleBoardandBermudaPoliceService(BPS).Theresearcheralsodeliveredapresentationto

theDoCstaff,andseparatelytotheseniormanagersoftheBPS.

InNovember2015theresearcherandRJteamgaveafreepublicpresentationoftheinitiativeat

theCathedralHallinHamiltonaspartofRJweek.Atthistimetheresearchertookthe

opportunitytoputoutasurveyonRJforthosewhoattended(seeAppendix6fortheresultsof

thissurvey)93.

Duringthecourseoftheactionitbecameapparentthatthepublicshouldbeinformedofthe

initiative.Inanearlynewspaperarticle(2ndFebruary2015),theinitiativewaspublishedaspart

ofaseriesofarticlesthatwerebeingwrittenabouttheworkoftheDoC(seeAppendix4for

newspaperarticleswrittenontheinitiative).

ResearchParticipants:Selection&Demographics

SamplingTechniques&Issues

Purposefulsamplingwasemployedandspecificallycriterionsamplingtoselectboth

incarceratedoffender-participantsandvictim-participants.Criterionsamplingisacommon

strategyforqualitativeresearchas“...allindividualsstudiedrepresentpeoplewhohave

experiencedthephenomenon.”(Cresswell,2013,p155).Offender-participantshadtomeet

specificcriteriainordertobesuitabletoparticipateintheprogrammes(e.g.noactivemental

healthconditions;theyhadtoadmittheoffenceortheirpartintheoffenceandhave

93ThiswasadoptedfromasurveyconductedbytheRestorativeJusticeCouncil(UK)withthecouncil’spermission.


110

identifiablevictims).Asperguidance(e.g.NOMS2013;RestorativeJusticeCouncil,2011)on

implementationanddeliveryofRJinterventionscasesinvolvingsexualviolenceshouldbe

facilitatedbythosewithspecialistknowledgeofthistypeofcrime.Offenderswithsexual

offencesastheirindexoffencewereexcludedfromparticipationintheprogrammesduringthe

pilotphaseinwhichtheresearchwasbeingconducted.Therewerealsootherexemptionsthat

arenotuncommon,identicaltoJolliffe&Farrington’s(2007)researchonviolentoffending

programmes-“Domesticviolence,sexualoffendingandoffendingbypersonswithapersonality

disorderormentaldisorderweretreatedasdiscretegroups,distinctfromgeneraloffending,

andthereforeexcluded.”(Jolliffe&Farrington,2007,piii).Strang(2001,inMenkel-Meadow,

2007)alsopointsoutthatvictimlesscrimes(forexample,drinkdrivingoffencesanddrug-

offences)areunlikelytobesubjecttoRJ,asencounterswithvictimsisminimal.

OffenderswereallocatedtoeithertheVEPorSTP,andmatchedfortheirindexoffences(and

wherepossibleforageandlengthofsentence).Victim-participantswhoengagedintheSTP

werenotselectedbytheresearcher,butratherrecruitedbythePrisonFellowshipfacilitators

whodeliveredtheprogramme.Directvictims,whovoluntarilyagreedtoparticipatein

conferences,andtheresearch,wereidentifiedasthedirectvictimsorwitness/community-

victimsoftheoffenderswhovolunteeredtoparticipateintheconferences.

DescriptionofResearchParticipants

Offender-Participants

Itwasintendedfor36offenderstoparticipateinthestudy,withapproximately4-6ofthese

goingontoparticipateinaconference.Table1illustratesthenumberofoffenderswho

participatedintheprogrammes.Oftheoffenders28wereBermudian,alloftheoffender-

participants’agesareillustratedinTable2.


111

Table1–Illustratestheretentiondataofoffender-participantsforeachoftheprogrammes.

TreatmentIntendedn=36

Agreedtoparticipate

Non-starters94

Dropouts95 Limitedparticipation96

Completions

VEP 18 12 0 0 1 12(100%)STP 18 17 2(12%) 1(6%) 1 14(82%)

Totals 36 29 2(7%) 1(3%) 2 26(90%)Completionsincludedthose,intheprecedingcolumnwhodidnotfullyparticipate,but

completed;itexcludesdropoutsandnon-starters.

Victim-Participants

Itwasintendedfor18victimstoberecruitedfromthecommunitytoparticipateintheSTP.16

victimsagreedtoparticipate–15started;1droppedout(male)and1wasanon-starter

(female).TheSTPvictimsconsistedof13femalesand3males;ofthese15wereBermudianand

1wasanexpatriate;theiragesareillustratedinTable2.Therewere2primaryconference

victimsandonewitness-victim;97oftheseallwereBermudian.

Table2–Illustratestheagerange,meanandmedianofalltheparticipantsacrossthe

interventions.

STPVictimsn=16

ConferenceVictimsn=3

STPOffendersn=17

VEPOffendersn=12

ConferenceOffenders98

n=2Agerange 32–71 24–56 21–47 Mean 59.62 65 39.2 33.6 32Median 62.5 38 34

94Thetotal3non-starterswerehappyfortheirpre-questionnairedatatostillbeusedaspartoftheresearch.95Dropoutsarethosewhostarttheprogramme/attendsessionsandthenchosetowithdraw.96‘Limitedparticipation’referstothoseparticipantswhofinishedtheprogrammebutdidnotfullyparticipateinallaspectsoftheprogramme,orwerenotpresentfortheminimumnumberofsessionsrequiredforfullcompletion.97Theterm‘primaryvictims’wasusedtodistinguishbetweenthemainvictimsandsecondaryvictimsorvictim-supporters.Theprimaryvictimswerethosethatwereinterviewedpreandpostconference.98Theagesof‘ConferenceOffenders’werealsorepresentedintheSTPandVEPcolumns,astheywererequiredtoparticipateinoneoftheseprogrammesbeforeparticipatingonanRJconference.


112

DataAnalysis

Asmentionedabove,theresearchusingamixed-methoddesignfortheaddedpurposeof

triangulationandcomplementarity,alsosetouttoanalyseandreportonthequalitativeand

quantitativedatasimultaneously,wereappropriate.

Duringtheperiodofthephaseoneprogrammes(1stSeptember2014-31stAugust2015)the

averagedailyconvictedadultmalepopulationwas162.Theoffendersthatparticipatedinthe

programmesthereforeaccountedfor18%oftheentireadultmalepopulation.However,the

samplewouldnotbesufficientfortestsofsignificance.

Anumberofquantitativeanalysesweretoberunonthedatacollected,specificallyinrelation

toexaminingtheeffectsoftheprogrammesontheoffenders’levelsofempathy.TheIBMSPSS

(StatisticalPackagesforSocialSciences)softwarewasusedtoobtaindescriptivestatistics.The

NVivosoftwarepackagewasusedtoanalysequalitativedata.

Itwasintendedforthedatatoansweranumberofquestions,whichfellinto5broaddomains

(victimandoffenderviewsoftheCJSandRJ;motivation&retention;empathy;programme

evaluation;andtheconferenceexperience).Thechapterprovidesadescriptionofeachofthe

domains.

VictimandOffenderViewsoftheCriminalJusticeSystem(CJS)&RestorativeJustice(RJ)

AsBermudadoesnotconductanationalsurveyofconfidenceintheCJS,theresearcherwas

interestedtoknow,theparticipants’opinionsoftheCJS.Aseriesofquestionswereaskedabout

theparticipants’opinionsofthecourts,policeandcorrectionsdepartment.Thiscouldinformon

theparticipants’viewsofRJandgeneralsatisfactionoftheCJSandjusticeasaconcept.Further,

itcouldsuggesthowreceptivepeoplemightbetoRJinBermuda.ExtremeRJadvocatessuggest

thatRJcouldreplacetheCJS,albeitthattherearenumerousreasonswhythiswouldnotbe

feasible.

Motivation&Retention

The‘motivationandretention’domainwasconcernedwiththeparticipantsmotivationfor

participatinginRJ;andcouldinformonwaysofincreasingparticipantsmotivation;methodsof


113

contactandreasonsfordeclining,fearsandanxietiesofthoseparticipatingintheprogrammes.

Thedatawastoalsoinformfuturepractice.

Empathy

Itwasanobjectiveoftheactionresearchtoexplorewhetherparticipationinthetwo

prerequisiteprogrammes(VEP&STP)couldincreasetheoffender-participantslevelofempathy

fortheirvictims;aswasfoundinresearchconductedontheSTP99.Itwasalsonecessarytoseeif

therewasadifferencebetweentheprogrammespotentialtoincreaseempathy,withtheSTP

likelydefinedasa‘mostly-orientated’/‘relational’RJprogrammeandtheVEPbeingdefinedasa

‘partially-orientated’/‘individual’RJprogramme(McCold,2000;Toews,2006;respectively).

Basedonpreviousempiricalresearch,itwasoffurtherinteresttoseeiftherewasadifference

inempathylevelsbetweentheoffender-participantsconvictedforviolentoffencesandproperty

offences.100

ProgrammeEvaluation

ProgrammeevaluationwastocovertheoffenderandSTPvictimsopinionsandexperienceof

thetwoprerequisiteprogrammes,includingtheirevaluationsofthefacilitatorsskillsand

impartiality;howtheprogrammesweremanaged–intermsofinformationreceived;

corroborationandsafety.ItwasconsideredcrucialtothesustainabilityofRJintheDoC,

whetherornotparticipantswouldrecommendtheprogrammestoothers.

VictimandOffenderViewsoftheConferencingExperience

Analyseswithininthisdomainwouldbeconcernedspecificallywiththeexperienceandeffects

ofaconference,asexpressedbythevictimandoffenders.

Thischapterexplainedhowitwasimportanttogatherqualitativedatasuchconducting

interviewsandfocusgroup,toobtainclearmeaningattributedtotheviewsexpressedbythose

99Feasey&Williams(2009)AnEvaluationoftheSycamoreTreeProgramme:BasedonanAnalysisofCRIMEPICSIIData.SheffieldHallamUniversity:HallamCentreforCommunityJustice.100ThedevelopersoftheCRIME-PICSIIquestionnaire(Frudeetal,2013),statethatscoresonallscalescandiscriminatebetweenoffencesagainsttheperson(violence),propertyoffencesandmotoroffences.


114

thatparticipatedinthestudy.Membercheckingasastrategyofvalidity,alsohelpedelucidate

theparticipants’meaningsandguideagainstanybiasorsocialconstructsoftheresearcher.

Thiswasfurtherinkeepingwiththesocialconstructionistperspectivethatunderpinnedthe

research.Althoughasapilotthesamplewassmall(involving29offendersand4primaryor

witnessvictims,fromwhomdatawasgathered),itwasexplainedthatsomequantitativedata

wouldbeuseful.Quantitativedatawouldbeusefulinsheddinglightonthepossiblechangesin

empathyshownbytheoffendersandtheCRIMEPICSIIpsychometricwasselectedasithas

beeninsimilarstudiesbefore(e.g.Feasey&Williams,2009).Quantitativedatawasalsousedto

gaugetheparticipants’collectiveviewoftheisland’sCJS.Theresearcherastheprison

psychologistwouldnotconductthequestionnairesorinterviewswiththeoffendersbefore

completionofthephase-oneprogrammes,butwantedtoexplorehowtoimprovepracticein

theprison,andbetweentheprisonandcommunity,andthisthereforewasapieceofaction

research.Usingtriangulation,theresearchincludedoffendersandvictimsfromthecommunity;

interviews,psychometrics,questionnaires,observationandfocusgroups,thattogetherwould

allowexplorationoftheparticipantsexperienceoftheexperimentalprogramme,theCJSandRJ.

Asamixed-methodstudy,thefindingswouldbepresentedtogetherinthenextchapter

(Chapter6–Findings).


115

v CHAPTER6–FINDINGS

“…itisforparticipantsofrestorativejusticetochoosethewordsandtherebydevelopthemeansforresolvingtheconflict.”(Shapland,2013,p62)

“…outcomes,bythemselves,arenotthedefiningcharacteristic…”(Shapland,2013,p63)

Thecurrentchapterprovidesthefindingsoftheactionresearch.

AnalysisbyDomain

Reportingofthefindingswillbepresentedindomainsashighlightedinthepreviouschapter.

Bothqualitativeandquantitativedatawasgathered,andinaccordancewithtruemixed

methodology,wereanalysedsimultaneously(Greene,etal,1989).Thisprovidedboth

complementaryandtriangulateddata(Greene,etal,1989).

Thefindingsaddressthefollowingobjectivesofthestudy–

• Toexplorevictims’andoffenders’opinionsgenerally,oftheexistingCJS,andspecifically


• ToexploretheexperienceandeffectsofanexperimentalprogrammeofRJforvictims

andconvictedoffendersinBermuda.

Findingsonthefirstaimarepresentedinthefirstdomain‘VictimandOffenderViewsoftheCJS

&RJ’.Findingsonthesecondaimarecoveredoverafurtherfourdomains,whichfocuson

MotivationandRetention;Empathy;ProgrammeEvaluation;andVictim-OffenderViewsofRJ

andtheConferencingExperience.

VictimandOffenderViewsoftheCriminalJusticeSystem(CJS)&RestorativeJustice(RJ)

Asanaimofthethesis,theresearcherwasinterested-toexplorevictims’andoffenders’

generalopinionsoftheexistingCJSinBermuda,andspecificallyinthemanagementoftheir

cases.Itwasconsideredimperative,asanewinitiativetoBermuda,thatanindicationofthe

receptivenessforRJalsobegauged.Domainoneincludesdatafromonevictimpre-conference.


116

GeneralQuestionsontheCJS

ToexploregeneralopinionsoftheCJS,sevenmainstatementswerepresentedaspartofthe

pre-interventionquestionnaires.Allvictimandoffender-participantswereaskedtoratethe

statementsusingafive-pointLikert-responseformatbasedonwhetherornotthey‘strongly

agreed’;‘agreed’;‘neitheragreednordisagreed’;‘disagreed’or‘stronglydisagreed’witheach

statement.

Theresultsforeachstatementarepresentedbelowingraphs1-7,alongwithrelevant

complementaryandtriangulateddatawhetheratthepreorpost-interventionstage.

46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–‘SentenceshandeddownbytheCourtsare

fair’.Graph1showstheresponsesbyparticipantgroup.

Graph1.

Participantsweremorelikelyto‘disagree’(especiallyvictim-participants)or‘stronglydisagree’

withthestatement,althoughasubstantialproportion‘neitheragreedordisagreed’that

sentenceshandeddownbytheCourtsisfair.

DuringaSycamoreTreeprogramme(STP)sessionwhenthegroupdiscussedthetopicof

‘responsibility’,oneoftheoffender-participantsstated-“Ifeelvictimizedbythecourts.”In

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither Agree StronglyAgree

SentenceslaiddownbytheCourtsarefair.pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)


117

anotherSTPsession,offender-participantsverballydisagreedasoneoffendersuggesteda

prisonsentencecouldbeaformofrestitutionforsomevictims.

Inthefocusgroup(followingcompletionofthefirstVictimEmpathyprogramme(VEP)andSTP),

anSTPoffender-participantmadethefollowingstatement–

“Seetheoffendergetssentencedtotimeinjail,Idon’tthinkthat’senoughforavictimandIsawthat,Isawthatinthatvictiminthatclass,itsnotenoughandIreallyfeltforthemitslikeokayjudgesentencedyoutotime,okaywhathappenstomenow,I’mhappynowforthemoment,butwhathappensafterthreeyearsandyourthinkingaboutyourlovedone,oryourthinkingaboutwhat…comestorestorativejustice,victimsneedthesameamountofhelpormorethantheoffendersget,youknowweoffenderswealwaysgetourThinkingforChange,wegetthisclasswegetthatclassthat’ssupposetocurbourthinkingandourwaysofoffendingbutwhatisthevictimgetting,whatisreallythereforavictimyouknowwhatImean.”Thisprovidedaninsightintothethinkingofoffender-participantsthatwaslinkedtothefirstand

followingstatements,participantswereaskedtorate.

46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–‘TheCriminalJusticeSystemmeetsthe

needsofvictimsofcrime’;Graph2showstheresponsesbyparticipant-group.

Graph2.

Whilesomeparticipantslackedknowledgeofwhatvictimsmightneed,themajorityofvictim-

participants‘disagreed’or‘stronglydisagreed’,withnovictim-participant‘stronglyagreeing’.

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

StronglyDisagree


TheCJSmeetstheneedsofvicgmsofcrimepre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)


118

AVEPoffender-participantmadethefollowingstatementwithregardstovictimneedsduring

thefocusgroup(post-programme),despitetheabsenceofvictim-participantsintheprogramme

-“Whenyoutapintoavictim’spainthereain’tnotellingwhatyou’regonnaget.Itsgonnacomeatyou,soum,whatIfeelisthatvictim’sshouldtakesomekindoftwelve-stepcourse,ifyouaskmeyouknowwhatImean,Ibelievevictimsoughttogettogetherandtalkabouttheirpain,theirhurt,what’sbeendonetothemum,causeforthemtowalkaroundwiththattypeofanger,isnotellingwhat’sgonnabeatrigger…causeyouain’thadachancetoventyourfrustrationsaboutyourhurtandwhatputyouinthatplace.”

Asanindicatorofcommunityresources,46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–

‘ThereisadequatesupportforvictimsofcrimeinBermuda’.Thegroupresponsesareillustrated

inGraph3.

Graph3.

Offender-participantswerelargelyunsure,pre-programme,abouttheservicesavailableto

victimsinthecommunity.However,twiceasmanyvictim-participants‘disagreed’and‘strongly

disagreed’,thanthosethat‘agreed’.

DuringthefocusgroupofthefirstVEPandSTPoffender-participants,whenaskedwhattheyfelt

theylearntaboutvictims,oneoffenderstated-

“Andanothernotewithourgovernmentrighteven,I’msuretheyhaveprogrammesouttherebuthowlongdotheylastbeforetheysayokayyou’rebetternowandthenwhenyoudon’tfeelbetteryougottagopayforpersonalservices,youknowwhatImean,thatshouldjustbesomethingthatIfeelshouldbesetasideinthebudget…justlikeyouhavedrugcounsellingout

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

StronglyDisagree


Thereisadequatesupportforvicgmsofcrime.pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)


119

thereandstuff,youneedsomeseriousvictim,permanentvictimcounsellingforcrimeswhenpeoplereallythinktheyneeditandlookintothesepeople’slivesdon’tletthemjustwalkawayandsayI’mokay,alotofpeoplewillsaythat,alotofvictimswillsay‘I’mokay’butdeepdown,okaysojustbecausetheysaidtheirokaywhatyoujustforgetaboutthem,Iwouldsaycheckuponem,checkuponemforaperiodoftwoyearsifitsgottabe…yeahthisisforthevictims[anotheroffenderinterjects…likehowtheprobationofficercheckupontheircases]yepexactly…”

Beforeparticipatinginanyoftheinterventions,victimsandoffenderswerealsoasked–‘How

respectfulandconsideratetheythoughtagencies(Police&Courts)oftheCJSaretowards

victimsofcrime?Table3showstheresultsforthePoliceandTable4showstheresultsforthe

Courts.

Table3–Showsthevictimandoffendersresponsesofhowrespectfultheyfeelthepoliceare

towardsvictimsofcrime.

ResponseOptions

ofthePOLICE

VeryRespectful QuiteRespectful ALittleRespectful

NotAtAllRespectful

Victims(n=16) 2 5 8 1Offenders(n=29) 3 11 11 4

Totals(n=45) 5(11%) 16(36%) 19(42%) 5(11%)

Table4–Showsthevictimandoffendersresponsesofhowrespectfultheyfeelthecourtsare

towardsvictimsofcrime.

ResponseOptionsoftheCOURTS

VeryRespectful QuiteRespectful ALittleRespectful

NotAtAllRespectful

Victims(n=16) 4 3 9 0Offenders(n=29) 7 10 9 3

Totals(n=45) 11(24%) 13(29%) 18(40%) 3(7%)44participantsclearlyindicatedaresponsetothestatement–‘TheCriminalJusticeSystem

respectstherightsofthoseaccusedofcommittingacrimeandtreatsthemfairly.’Their

responsesareillustratedinGraph4byparticipant-group.


120

Graph4.

Noneoftheparticipants‘stronglyagreed’withthisstatement.Whilethemajorityofvictims

wereunsure,closetotwo-thirdsoftheoffender-participantseither‘disagreed’or‘strongly

disagreed’thattheCJSrespectstherightsofaccusedoffendersandtreatsthemfairly.

Onlytheoffender-participantswereasked,pre-programmefortheirratingson–‘How

respectfulandconsideratetheythoughtagenciesoftheCJS(Police&Courts)aretowardsthose

accusedofcommittingacrime?’Table5showstheresultsforthePoliceandCourts.

Table5 ResponseOptions VeryRespectful QuiteRespectful ALittle

RespectfulNotAtAllRespectful

POLICE 1(3%) 5(17%) 14(48%) 9(31%)Offenders(n=29)COURTS 1(3%) 9(31%) 13(45%) 6(21%)Turingtocrimereduction,46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–‘TheCriminal

JusticeSystem,asawholeiseffectiveinreducingcrime’.Theirresponsesareillustratedin

Graph5byparticipant-group.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

StronglyDisagree


TheCJSrespectstherightsofthoseaccusedofcommimngacrimeandtreatsthemfairly.

pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=15)


121

Graph5.

Overathirdofeachparticipant-group‘neitheragreednordisagreed’withthestatement.The

restoftheparticipantslargelyleanedtowardsdisagreementandstrongdisagreementwiththe

statement.

46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–‘TheDepartmentofCorrectionsiseffective

athelpingtorehabilitateoffendersconvictedofacrime’.Theirresponsesareillustratedin

Graph6byparticipant-group.

Graph6.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

StronglyDisagree


TheCJSasawholeiseffecgveinreducingcrime.pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

StronglyDisagree


TheDoCiseffecgveathelpingtorehabilitateoffendersconvictedofacrime.

pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)


122

Themajorityofbothparticipant-groupsfeltunabletoprovidedefinitiveresponses.

However,agreaternumberoftheoffenders‘disagreed’or‘stronglydisagreed’collectively;

findingtheDoCineffectiveathelpingtorehabilitateoffenders.

Post-programmeinthefocusgroup,aVEPoffender-participantmadeastatementaboutthe

programmesandCorrectionsregime–

“AllIwannasayisthat,Iwouldreallyliketosee,especiallythesetwoprogrammesrestorativejusticeandvictimempathycontinue,andkeepcontinuingfortheyearstocomeandthatalongwiththattheyreallylookatsincetheybroughtthoseintotheprison,theyreallylookattrainingtheseBasicOfficers,trainingOfficersperiod,more,onwhattheseprogrammesaboutandhowtheyneedtoplaytheirparttoo,asprofessionalsinthiscorrectionalservice.”46participantsgavearesponsetothestatement–‘TheCriminalJusticesystemiseffectivein

bringingpeoplewhohavecommittedcrimestojustice’.TheirresponsesareshowninGraph7.

Graph7.

OneSTPoffender-participantstatedduringasession-“OurjusticesysteminBermudais

retarded.”

QuestionsPertainingtoPersonalCases&ExperienceswiththeCJS

InrelationtothepersonalcasesandexperiencesoftheCJS,victimsandoffenderswereasked

differentquestions–

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither Agree StronglyDisagree

TheCJSiseffecgveinbriningpeoplewhohavecomminedcrimestojusgce.

pre-intervenxon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=17)


123

QuestionsaskedofVictimsincluded–

Wereyoucalledtogiveevidenceinyourcase?

Doyoufeelyougottheopportunitytosaywhatyouwantedincourt?

WereyouaskedtoprovideaVictimImpactStatement?

Of17victimswhoprovidedaresponse–11indicatedthattheywerenotcalledtogiveevidence

intheircase.Theremaining6indicatedthatthequestionwasnotapplicabletothem;this

tendedtobeforreasonssuchastheoffenderswereneverapprehended;theoffenceagainst

themhadnotoccurredinBermudaortheythemselvesdidnotreporttheoffencetothePolice.

2victimsindicatedthatthey‘somewhat’gottheopportunitytosaywhattheywantedinCourt.

Basedonascaleof‘Totally’;‘Somewhat’and‘Notatall’.

3victimsindicatedthattheywereaskedtoprovideaVictimImpactStatement(VIS)(inaddition

1othervictimsaidthattheygotthisopportunity,withtheircasehavingbeenheardintheUK).

5statedthattheywerenotgiventheopportunitytoprovideaVIS.

QuestionsaskedofOffendersincluded–

Didyouhaveanopportunitytoaddressthosewhohadbeenaffectedbyyouractions,whenyou

wereincourt?

Wouldyouhavelikedtospeaktothoseaffectedbyyouractions,whenyouwereincourt?Did

youspeaktoyourvictimsincourt?

DidyouhaveanopportunitytowritetotheJudge?

Ofthe29offendersthatagreedtoparticipateintheprogrammes–34%(n=10)indicatedthat

theyhadtheopportunitytoaddressthevictimsinCourt.

59%(n=17)oftheoffendersindicatedthattheywouldhavelikedtospeakwiththevictimsof

theircase,withafurther14%(n=4)indicatingthattheydidaddressthevictimsincourt.

31%(n=9)offendersindicatedthattheyhadtheopportunitytowritetothejudge.


124

GeneralMotivationfor,andKnowledgeofRestorativeJustice

Beforestartingtheprogrammesorconferencing,bothvictimsandoffenders(n=46)wereasked

iftheyhadknowledgeofRJinBermudaorelsewhere?Theresultsareillustratedinthepiechart

below.

Duringthefocusgroup,adiscussionflowedbetweentheoffenderspertainingtoRJ,the

communityandrepair–

“Youcantaketheclassesuphereandbestrivingforagoallike…changingmylifeorunderstandinghowyou’reacting,andallthat,thevictim,youbumpintothemagainandtheydon’tknowthatyoutookthestepintherightdirection,they’restillgonnalookatyouasthesamepersonfrombefore,soitfeelslike,asanoffenderyourgonnafeelasifyourwastingyourtimeanditseasyforyoutogetlikethat…”[anotheroffenderinterrupts-]“That’swhyIsaidearlierthatyou’regonnahavetomakeamore,biggerstep…asfarasconnectingtheactualvictimandtheactualoffenderinsomewayitmightbestagesyouhavetoimplementtomakeitmoretransitional…meaningyoustartlightbutitsgottabesteps,asmade,tomakerealrestorativejustice.”

Pre-interventionbothvictimsandoffenderswereaskedtoconsider,atdifferenttimeframesofa

case,whetherornottheywouldhavebeenwillingtobeapartofanRJintervention.Some

victimsdidnotfeelthatthequestionsbeingaskedwereapplicabletotheircircumstances,for

thosethatdidrespondtheirresponsesareillustratedingraphs8-10below,byparticipant-

group.

Alot4%

Alinle39%

None57%

KnowledgeofRestoragveJusgce

Alot

Alinle

None


125

48%

24%27%

58%

17%

25%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes Unsure No

Graph9-Whenthecaseisincourtbutbeforeconvicgon

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=12)

41%

34%

24%

50%

17%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Yes Unsure No

Graph8-Whenoffendersarearrestedandcharged

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=12)


126

Ateachtimeframe(arrest,conviction,pre-sentence)mostparticipantsindicatedawillingnessto

participateinanRJintervention.

59%

17%

24%

50%

42%

8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes Unsure No

Graph10-Post-convicgon,pre-sentence

Offenders(n=29)

Vicgms(n=12)


127

Post-programme,bothvictimsandoffenderswereaskedwhattheythoughtthebenefitsofRJ

were.Thefrequenciesofthewordsusedintheirresponsesaregraphicallyrepresentedinthe

wordcloud(1)below.

Analysisoftheword-cloudilluminatedphrasessuchas,thebenefitsofRJbeingto–helpthe

community;providingopportunityforlearningandforgiveness;givingsecondchancesand

allowingforjusticeandfeelingstobeexpressed.38participants(n=25offenders/n=13STP

victim-participants)offeredspecificexamplesofbenefitstheybelievedRJoffers.Their

responsesincluded-

“Thebenefitsofrestorativejusticeistoallowtheoffendertohearandlearnhowtounderstandthevictimspointofviewandhowtorectifytheirwayofliving,sothatitnolongerwillhaveanegativeimpactonsociety.Anditalsohelpsmeasavictimtolearnhowtoforgive.”(STPvictim-participant)


128

“Givesbothoffendersandvictimsanopportunitytosharewitheachother:reasonsforcrimesforoffenders;feelingsofbeingvictimisedforvictims.Bothpartiescanhopefullygrowfromtheprocessandbeinabetterplaceafter.”(STPoffender-participant)

“Tohelppeoplefacethethingstheyhaven’tbeenabletodealwithontheirown.”(STPvictim-participant)

“Ithinkthebenefitsareendless.Notonlyistheinmateorconvictedpersongivensecondchancetoredeemthemselves,buttheyaresparedtheheadachesthatjailcomeswith.Idobelieveinpunishment,butIalsobelievethereareothersolutionsratherthanlockingupapersonastheonlyoption.”(VEPoffender-participant)“Themainbenefitisinbriningtogether“offenders”n“victims”Ittakesalotofcourage–forbothsides–inmatesmustwonderifthey’regoingtobeblamed&shamed&victimsmayworrythey’llbefurthervictimised.Andneithertranspired!Thishelpstodilutethe“us&them”divisiveness.Headingtomoreopenness&anavenuetohealing.”(STPvictim-participant)


129

Post-programme,thevictimsandparticipantswerealsoaskedwhattheythoughtthenegative

consequencesofRJmightbe.Thefrequencyofthewordsusedintheirresponses,tothe

questionisrepresentedinthewordcloudbelow.

24offender-participantsansweredthequestion–50%(n=12)ofthemdidnotconsiderany

negativeconsequencesofRJandwroteresponsessuchas“unsure”“none”and“Idon’tsee

any.”Thosethatdidsuggestconsequences,includedissuessuchas-

“Anegativeconsequenceofrestorativejusticeisthatthepersonmaynotlearntheirlesson,andre-offendandthevictim’smaybecomeatargetagain.”(VEPoffender-participant)

“Notallpersonsarereadyorwillingtolookattheeffectsthatacrimehashadonthem.”(STPoffender-participant)


130

63%(n=10)ofvictims-participantsprovidedawrittenresponsetothequestion-2ofthese

stated“Theadvantagesfaroutway[any]negativeconsequence.”and“Negative?Really?”

Otherresponsesincluded-

“Someoffendersmaynotbepreparedtoacceptpersonalresponsibility.Victimsmaystillbeangryandunreadytoforgive,stayingstuckandunabletomoveforward.”“Idon’treallythinktherewerenegativeconsequenceshoweverpersons(some)mayrelivetheexperience.Buttheyweregivenplentyoftimetorealisethiscouldhappen.”

EffectsofRJonPerceptionsoftheCJS

Offender-participants(n=4)whoweretomeetwiththeirdirectvictims(afterthephase-one

programmes)wereaskedtocompleteapre-conferencequestionnaire.Thisincludedthe

identicalstatementsabouttheCJS,aswereaskedpre-phaseoneparticipation.

Thetablebelowshowstheirresponsesbeforethephase-oneprogrammes(blackstars)andtheir

responsesafterthephase-oneprogramme/pre-conferencing(redstars).

StronglyAgree

Agree Neither Disagree StronglyDisagree

SentenceshandeddownbytheCourtsarefair. *

*****

**

TheCriminalJusticeSystemmeetstheneedsofvictimsofcrime. *

*****

**

ThereisadequatesupportforvictimsofcrimeinBermuda. *

****

**

*


131

StronglyAgree

Agree Neither Disagree StronglyDisagree

TheCriminalJusticeSystemrespectstherightsofthoseaccusedofcommittingacrimeandtreatsthemfairly.

*

***

*

***

TheCriminalJusticeSystemasawholeiseffectiveinreducingcrime.*

* **

**

**

TheDepartmentofCorrectionsiseffectiveathelpingtorehabilitateoffendersconvictedofacrime.

**

**

*

**

*

TheCriminalJusticeSystemiseffectiveinbringingpeoplewhohavecommittedcrimestojustice.

***

**

**

*

DomainOneSummary

TheoffendersandvictimsthatstartedtheprogrammeswereveryreceptivetoRJbefore

embarkingontheprogrammes.Thiswasfurtherevidencedinparticipantsbeingwillingto

engageinRJinterventionsatdifferentstagesofacrimehavingbeencommittedandwithlittle

knowledgeofRJbeforeparticipatingintheprogrammes.Therewasamarkedperceptionofthe

existingCJSasbeingineffectivetomeettheneedsofvictims;upholdtherightsofpeople

accusedofoffending;toproactivelyreducecrimeorrehabilitatethoseconvictedofcrimes.The

mostpositiveperceptionoftheCJSwasthatitwassomewhateffectivein‘bringingthosewho

havecommittedcrimestojustice’.

Post-programme,participantsspokemorereadilyoftheperceivedbenefitsofRJ,thanthe

possiblenegativeeffects.Similarly,offender-participants(whoweretoengageinconferencing)

indicatedmorepositiveperceptionsoftheCJSpost-programme.


132

Incasesofcrimes,committedanddealtwithinBermuda,thevictim-participantsindicatedthat

theywerelargelyexcludedfromgivingevidenceatcourt,andofthosethatindicatedtheyhad

beeninvolvedinthecase,nonefeltthattheyhadfullopportunitytosaywhattheywantedas

partofthejudicialprocess.Interestingly,despiteasignificantnumberoftheoffender-

participantsindicatingthattheyhadtheopportunitytoaddressthevictimsincourt,agreater

numberindicatedthattheywouldhavelikedtoaddressthevictimincourtandveryfewstated

thattheyactuallydid.

MotivationtoparticipateintheDoC’sRJinitiativeandtheretentionofparticipantswouldbe

crucialtothesustainabilityoftheproject.Forthistohappenitwouldbeimportanttoexplore

whetherornottheprogrammescouldbegintoaddresstheneedsofvictims’andoffenders.

Suchinformationwouldalsohelptoinformfuturepracticeandpolicy.Thisiscoveredinthe

nextsectionofthechapter.

Motivation&Retention

Motivation

Intheinitialassessmentofsuitabilityfortheoffender-participants,theywereaskedtoratehow

motivatedtheyweretoparticipateintheprogrammes(VEP&STP)onascaleof1-5,where1=

‘Notatallmotivated’and5=‘Verymotivated’.Ofthe26offendersthatparticipatedinthe

programmes100%ratedtheirmotivation3andabove;83%4andabove;55%ratedtheir

motivationas5–verymotivated.TheaverageratingofmotivationfortheVEPoffenderswas

4.42andtheaverageforSTPwas4.35.

Preandpost-programmeparticipation,bothvictimsandoffenderswereaskedtoindicatehow

theyfeltaboutbeingaskedtoparticipateintheprogrammes.Thegraphbelow[graph11]shows

thepreandpostratingsforeachseparatedgroupofparticipants(VEPoffender-participants;STP

offender-participantsandtheSTPvictims-participants).101

101DifferencesinthepreandpostnumbersfortheSTPoffenderandvictim-participants,isduetodrop-outs,non-startersandparticipantsfailingtoanswerthequestion.


133

Graph11

Acrosseachoftheparticipantgroups,thenumberofparticipantsthatwere‘verypleased’to

havebeenaskedtoparticipateincreasedpost-programme.Forexample,ofthetwoSTP

offender-participantswhowere‘notverypleased’pre-programme,bothratedtheirfeelingson

participationas‘verypleased’post-programme.TheoneVEPoffender-participant,who

indicatedbeing‘notatallpleased’post-programme,wastheoneVEPoffenderwhodidnotfully

participateintheprogramme.However,hehadratedhisinitiallevelofmotivationas3.

Duringthefocusgroup,heldwithaselectionofoffender-participantsfromthefirstVEPandSTP

programmesthatagreedtomeet,theyraisedconcernsregardingtheassessmentofoffender

suitabilityforprogrammeparticipation.Theseexcerptscameoutinresponsetothequestion–

‘Priortogoingintothegroupandhearingaboutit,whatwereyoumostfearfulof?’

“Wellforme…confidentialtypeofstufflikeumIhadumIwannasaysomethingaboutumscreeningandpickingtherightguysfortheclassesbecauseIthinkthat’sveryimportant,youknowwhenyourdoingyourscreeningprocesslike,totakepeoplethatarereallyseriousandreallywannahelpthemselvesinsteadofpeopletojustmakeupthenumbersyouknow…”

“ThatwasthebiggestfearrighttherebecausethefirstthingthatIaskedwasumMs*****atthestartoftheclasswasumwaswhowasgonnabeintheclasswithmebecauseyoudon’twannaopenuptosomebodywhoseimmatureyouknowcauseitsveryconfidentialinformationandyoudon’twantthemtogoaroundandblabberaboutwhatwe’retalkingaboutinclass…ifwe’realltryingtohelpeachotherout,thatwasmybiggestfearrightthere.”

0%

50%

100%

VEPpre(n=12)

VEPpost(n=12)

STPpre(n=17)

STPpost(n=14)

Vicgmspre

(n=16)

Vicgmspost(n=14)

Howdoyoufeelaboutbeingaskedtopargcipate?

Verypleased

Pleased

Notverypleased

Notatallpleased


134

“Iwasmoreworriedaboutwhatyouweregoingtodowiththeinformationthatyougotoutoftheclass,wherewasthisinformationgonnago?whatpurposewereyougoingtousetheinformationfor…thatwasthegreatestfearIhadbecauseyouraskinginmatesfromdifferentbackgroundsyouknowwhatImean,tocometogethersoyouthrewusallinonepotandletsseewhatwecangetoutofthis…Iwasn’tsoworriedaboutwhowasgonnabeintheclassroom,itseitheryourgonnabeamanbigenough,strongenoughtostandonyourowntwofeetandwhateverhappeninthepastifyoufeltthattherestofthepopulation[inmatepopulation]neededtohearitthat’sonyourshoulders,seewhatI’msaying…andI’mgonnatellyoulikeItelleverybodyelse*****hashisowncrosstocarryandIhavemyowncrosstocarrybutwhat******doeswhat*****dont,thataintgotnothingtodowithmesee,itsnotmybusiness,sotheysay‘heyyouknowwhatthatboydone’…that’snotwhatthis,thisclasswasfor….”

Thefocus-groupoffenderswerereferringtotheVEPoffender-participantwhoratedhisfeelings

as‘notatallpleased’post-programmeandwhodidnotfullyparticipate.Thisalsospoketothe

recruitmentoftheparticipantsandtheirawarenessoftheprogrammesbeingresearched.

Similarly,post-programmeallparticipantswereasked–‘Howdoyoufeelnowabouthaving

beencontactedtoparticipate?’[Graph12],thefindingsconfirmtheresultsabove(pertainingto

howtheyfeltaboutbeingaskedtoparticipatepreandpost).

Graph12

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

VEPOffenders(n=12)

STPOffenders(n=14)

STPVicgms(n=14)

Howdoyoufeelaboutbeingcontactedtopargcipate?post-programme

Verypleased

Pleased

Notatall


135

Allparticipantswereaskedbeforestartingtheprogrammeswhattheirreasonswerefor

agreeingtoparticipateandwhattheyhopedtogainfromtheprocess.Thefrequencyofthe

wordsusedintheresponsesisrepresentedinthewordcloudbelow.

Salientphrasesthatcreatedthewordshighlightedintheword-cloud,consistedof

understandingtheeffectsofcrime;tofeelbetter;gainhopeandhelpvictims.Specificresponses

were-

FromtwoSTPoffender-participants-“ToobtainanotherviewonhowthecrimesIhavecommittedeffectothers.”“Ihope2gainabetterunderstandingofthecarnage&emotionalstressthatIcausedothers,&IhopethatIcanhelpsomeonetogainsomeclosure,byexplainingmyactionsandexpressingmyapologies.”

FromtwoVEPoffender-participants-“Abetterunderstandingofhowcrimeeffectspeople.Ihaven’tbeenthevictimofcrimemuchinmylife.AndifIwasIneverthoughtabouttheeffectsithadonmeandmyfamily.”“Iwanttosharethefactsofmycasetoseehowotherpeoplewouldfeeliftheywasinmyshoes.”


136

Twovictim-participantsreportedtheirmotivationaswanting-“Togetabetterunderstandingoftheconvictedpersonandtheirthoughtsonhoworwhyithappened.Tohealfromtheincident.”“Tounderstandthemindandreasoningofsomeonewhocommitsacrime.Toseeiftheyrealizeorknowtheimpactoftheiractionshaveonotherpeoplei.e.thevictims,andtheconsequencesoftheiractions.”

Retention

Asillustratedinthepreviouschapter,someparticipantsagreedtoparticipateinthe

programmesbutthenfailedtostarttheprogrammeorchosetodrop-outpartwaythrough.The

tablesbelowsetoutthenumberofparticipantsitwashopedwouldparticipate;thosethat

starteddropped-outandcompleted.Thetableissplitintooffender-participantsandvictim-

participants.

Offenders TreatmentIntendedn=36

Agreedtoparticipate

Non-starters

Dropouts

Limitedparticipation102

Completions

VEP 18 12 0 0 1 12(100%)STP 18 17 2(12%) 1(6%) 1 14(82%)

Totals 36 29 2(7%) 1(3%) 2 26(90%)

Victims TreatmentIntendedn=18

Agreedtoparticipate

Non-starters

Dropouts

Limitedparticipation

Completions

STP 18 16 1(6%) 1(6%) 1 14(88%)

OneoftheSTPoffender-participantnon-startersandtheonedropout,weretwooffendersvery

closetorelease.Thevictim-participantthatdroppedoutdidsoduetoworkobligationsthat

begantoconflictwiththestarttimeoftheprogramme.Theonevictim-participant,whodidnot

starttheprogramme,failedtostartbecauseoftheirfearofgoingintoaprisonand

disenfranchisedgrief.Thelattervictim-participantraisedtheseissuesduringthepre-

programmeassessment,althoughtheyhadmaintainedadesiretoparticipate.

102Limitedparticipationreferredtothosethatfinishedtheprogramme,butdidnotattendtheminimumnumberofsessionstobeconsideredafullcompletion.


137

Post-programme,theSTPparticipantswereasked–Howappropriatetheprisonwasasa

setting?

‘VeryAppropriate’-43%ofvictims(n=6)and50%STPoffender-participants

‘Appropriate’-57%ofvictims(n=8)and36%oftheSTPoffenders(n=5)

‘Neutral’-14%oftheoffenders(n=2).

Noneoftheparticipantsfeltthattheprisonwas‘notveryappropriate’or‘notatall

appropriate’.

Regardingtheirsenseofsafety,allparticipantswereaskedpost-programme-Howsafetheyfelt

duringtheprogramme?Theresultsareillustratedingraph13below.Safetywasnotdefined

andwaslikelyinterpreteddifferentlybythedifferentparticipants.Theoffendersweremore

concernedaboutconfidentialityanddisclosure,whilethevictimsinterpretedsafetyintermsof

thepotentialforconflictandphysicalsafety.

Graph13

DuringsessiontwoofanSTP,oneofthevictim-participantssaid-“Beinginthisatmospherehastakenthefearrightoutofme.”

Duringthefocusgroupphysicalsafetywasraisedasapotentialissueforvictims.Referringto

whereconferencesshouldbeheld-

“I’msayingIthinkitshouldbecauseletmeshowyouthereasonwhyIsuggestedthishere,Isaiditshouldbedoneuphere(referringtotheprison)becauseyouknowwhat,youcansitbehind

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

VEP(n=12)STP(n=14)

Vicgms(n=14)

Safetyfeltduringtheprogrammes

Notverysafe

Quitesafe

Verysafe


138

thatglassupthereandyouknowtheycansaywhattheywant,acthowtheyreallywant…withoutfeelingintimidated,youknowthatglassyoucan’tbreakit,youfeelwhatI’msaying.[anotheroffenderquestions–“yourtalkingaboutglass”]upinvisits.”Thesecondoffenderargues-“Itsnotevenaboutintimidationlike,Ithinkitsmoreabouthealing,I’mtalkingaboutone-on-onewiththeoffender.”

Post-programme,theoffender-participants(n=26)wereasked-Iftheyfeltsupportedbythose

intheprogrammewiththem?

77%(n=20)reportedtofeeling‘alot’ofsupport;19%(n=5)felt‘alittle’supportand4%(n=1)

reportedtofeeling‘notatall’supported(thelatter,anoffenderwhodidnotfullyparticipate).

Ofthevictim-participants(n=14)-

64%(n=9)reportedfeeling‘plenty’ofsupport,whiletheremaining36%(n=5)felt‘enough’

support.

MotivationforRJConferencing

Duringthefocusgrouptheresearcheraskedtheoffenders–Whattheylearntaboutvictimson

theprogrammes.Duringrapidcontributions,oneoffenderstated-

“Iagreewithwhat*****saidasfarasvictims,youknow,causeIsawthatmyselfandIknowyouaskedthisquestionfirstbutIhadtothinkaboutitalittlebitandwhatIdidlearnfromtheclasswasthatIhavetheabilitytoforgive,youknowwhatImeanso,andthat’sthethinglike,itshardforthesepeoplethat’sbeenvictimisedto,tojustforgivesomeoneoffthewhim,that’swhyIfeelthatthisclassis,Imeanit’sagoodstartasfarasinthedirectionofrestorativejusticebutatacertaindatemoreisgonnaneeded,needtobedoneasfarasbringingaboutrealrestorativejusticetotheactualvictimsandtheactualoffenders.”

Asthecontributionscontinued,otheroffendersspokeonthecommentsofthosebeforethem–“That’swhyIsaidearlierthatyou’regonnahavetomakeamore,biggerstep…asfarasconnectingtheactualvictimandtheactualoffenderinsomewayitmightbestagesyouhavetoimplementtomakeitmoretransitional…meaningyoustartlightbutitsgottabestepsasmadetomakerealrestorativejustice.”


139

Post-programmealloftheoffender-participantswereaskediftheywouldliketomeetwiththe

victim(s)oftheiroffence?(Graph14)

Basedontheirparticipation,aninitialselectionofoffenderswasaskediftheywouldactually

liketomeetwiththeirdirectvictims.Iftheoffenderswerewillingtoparticipateinaconference,

areferralwasmadetotheBermudaPoliceServiceforinitialcontacttobemadewiththedirect

victimstoinvitethemtoameetingaboutRJ.Eachoftheoffendersapproached,hadindicated

theirwillingnesstomeetwiththevictim(s)oftheiroffence.Table6showsthenumberof

offendersasked-byprogramme,andthewillingnessofthevictimstoparticipateina

conference.

Table6103 Offenders

askedOffendersagreeing

ContactwithVictims

MeetingswithVictims

Victimsagreeing

Conference/Intervention

VEP 3 2 2 2 1 1STP 2 2 2 2 2 1

Totals 5 4 4 4 3 2TheoneVEPoffender-participantthatdidnotwanttomeetwiththeirvictimdeclinedasthe

primaryvictim(ofstealing)wasafamilymember.Thevictimthatdeclinedtoparticipateina

conferenceaftermeetingwithafacilitatorstatedthattheyfelttoomuchtimehadpassedsince

theoffence(burglary).

103Thenumbersundercolumnspertainingtovictims,refertothenumberofcasesopposedtothenumberofvictims.Forexample,onevictimofanoffendermaydeclinetomeetwithconferencefacilitators,whereanothervictimorthree,ofthesameoffendermayagreetomeet.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

YesUnsure

No

83%

17%

77%

8% 15%

Willingtomeetwithdirectvicgms

VEP(n=12)STP(n=13)


140

DomainTwoSummary

Motivationandretentionfortheoffender-participantswashighforbothprogrammes–92-

100%completionfortheVEP,76-82%completionfortheSTPand82-88%completionforthe

STPvictim-participants.Post-programmeallparticipants(n=40)exceptonewaseither‘pleased’

or‘verypleased’abouthavingbeenaskedtoparticipateintheprogrammes.Only3participants

failedtostarttheprogrammeafterfirstagreeingtoparticipate.Oneoffender-participant’s

removalwasduetoadministrativeissues.Theotheroffender-participantwasverycloseto

releaseandthevictim-participantwrestledwithissuesofdisenfranchisedgrief.Dropoutswere

alsoverylow(4%),withthevastmajorityofparticipantsfeelingsupportedbyotherparticipants.

Themesthatarosewhichaffectedmotivationandretentionweretheparticipants’senseof

safetyandtheselectionprocessofoffender-participants.However,theSTPvictimsexpressed

feelingsafeduringtheprogramme,toanevengreaterextentthantheoffenders.Moreover,the

DoCwasviewedasanappropriatesettingfortheprogrammes.Itwasapparentfrom

observationthattheoffendersweremoreconcernedwithissuesofconfidentiality,when

consideringsafety.Theoffendersalsoquestionedtheselectionofoffender-participantsandthis

occurredlargelyinoneVEPprogrammewheretheoffender-participantswereunhappywiththe

inclusionofaparticularoffender.

Thevastmajorityofoffender-participantsreportedawillingnesstomeetwiththedirectvictims

oftheiroffences,post-programme.Amajorobjectiveofthestudywastoexplorewhetheror

notthephase-oneprogrammescoulddecreasetheoffender-participants’denialofharmcaused

tovictimsofcrime,essentiallyincreasingvictimempathy;thisisthefocusofthenextsectionof

thechapter.

Empathy(andtheCRIME-PICSIIQuestionnaire)

Asanexpectedeffectoftheprogrammes,itwasimportanttoexploretheeffectsofempathyon

theoffenderparticipants.Thiswastoseeiftheirempathycouldincreaseforthepeoplethat

havebeenaffectedbytheiractions.Havingregardforthepeopleaffectedbytheiractions

wouldbeimportantbeforeconsideringwhetherornottheywouldbesuitabletomeetwith

theirdirectvictims.


141

Statisticalanalysiswouldnotbeappropriatebasedonthepurposefulselectionofparticipants

thatwouldviolatetherequiredconditionofnormaldistribution;thereforetestsofsignificance

couldnotbeconducted.Descriptivestatisticswereusedtoanalysethedata.

TheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometricwasadministeredtooffender-participantsbeforeandafter

theirparticipationinthephase-oneprogrammes,andafteraconferenceforthosethat

participatedinafurtherinterventionwiththeirdirectvictims.Themainscaleofinteresttothe

studywastheV-scalethatassessesthedegreetowhichtheoffender-participantsacknowledge

theharmcausedtovictims.Decreasedscorespost-programmeshowgreateracknowledgement.

VictimEmpathyScale

Analysingthemeanscorespreandpostforalltheoffender-participants(n=26)thatcompleted

theprogrammesyieldedthefollowingscores–

n=26

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceM=5.15(SE=0.49) M=4.27(SE=0.4) 0.88

Thisdifferenceinthescorespreandpostindicatesanincreasedacknowledgementoftheharm

causedtothevictimsoftheircrime.

Whenthesameanalysiswasconductedminusthetwooffender-participants(n=24)whohad

notfullyparticipatedintheprogrammes,ofwhichtherewasonefromeachprogramme,the

analysisshowedagreaterdifference–

n=24

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceM=5.17(SE=0.51) M=4.08(SE=0.35) 1.09

Thedifference/reductioninaveragescoreswasgreater,indicatinggreateracknowledgementof

theharmcausedtothevictimsoftheircrimeinthedesireddirection.

Duringthefocusgroupwhenaskedwhattheyfelttheylearntaboutvictims,aVEPoffender-

participantsharedapartofhislearning,whichwasextendedbyanSTPparticipant-

“Forme,likeIsaidum,victimempathy,I’mnotstupidornothingIknowwhatIdidwaswrongbutreallylike,toputmyselfinthevictim’sshoesitgotmeintouchwithfeelingsthatIweren’tawareof,youknow,ifyouunderstandwhatImean…butvictimsgowiderthantherebecauseyougotpeopleinthecommunityto[anotheroffender-participantinterrupts]“sureyeahthat’swhyIsaidtheRippleEffectgoestoeverybody...”


142

Phase-OneProgrammeComparison

Astherewasasubstantialdifferenceinthemeanscores,oncethetwooffender-participants

whohadnotfullyparticipatedhadbeenexcluded,theseindividualswereexcludedfromfurther

analysis.Asanaimofthestudywastoevaluateandcontrasttheprogrammesusedinorderto

drawimplicationsforfuturepractice,themeansofeachprogrammeontheV-scalewas

analysed.

ThemeanscoresontheV-scalewereanalysedforthetwophase-oneprogrammes-

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceVEP(n=11) M=4.64(SE=0.49) M=4.00(SE=0.49) 0.636STP(n=13) M=5.62(SE=0.851) M=4.15(SE=0.517) 1.462

Theresultsshowedthattherewasthefavourablereductioninscorespost-programmeforeach

intervention,withagreaterdifferencefortheSTP.Noteworthy,howeveristhattheSTPpre-

scoresweremuchhigherthanthatoftheVEPscores,andtheVEPscorespost-programmewere

lowerthanthatoftheSTP;wherethelowerthescorethemorepositivetheoutcome.

Forthisreason,itwouldbeusefultoexaminetheaveragescoresoftheSTPandVEP,ifanequal

numberofoffenderswereanalysedandmatchedforoffences,ashadoriginallybeenintended.

Inordertoassesswhetherornottherewasadifferenceinempathyscoresbetweenthosewho

hadparticipatedintheSTPandthosethatparticipatedintheVEP,7pairsofoffender-

participantswerematchedfortheirindexoffences.Offencesincludedwounding,burglary,

aggravatedburglary,murder,robberyandrobberywithfirearmcharges.

Becauseoftheactualoffender-participantsthatcompletedtheprogramme,ananalysisof

differencebetweenthoseoffendersconvictedforoffencesagainstapersonandproperty

offences,wasnotpossible.Thevastmajorityhadcommittedoffencesofviolenceagainsta

person.

Themeanscoreswereanalysedforthe7-pairedoffendersontheV-scale-

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceVEP(n=7) M=5.00(SE=0.84) M=4.57(SE=0.76) 0.43STP(n=7) M=4.14(SE=0.54) M=4.29(SE=0.88) -0.15


143

ThescoresfortheVEPoffendersshowedfavourablechangepost-programme,althoughthis

changewasnotasgreatasitwasforthegroupcollectively.ThiswasalsothecasefortheSTP

offender-participants,totheextentthattherewasaminimalnegativeimpactonthisverysmall

numberofparticipants.

TheG,A&ECRIME-PICSIIScales

TheotherscalesmeasuredbytheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometricswereanalysed.TheG-scalefor

generalattitudetowardoffending;theA-scaleassessestheoffenders’anticipationoffuture

offendingandtheE-scaleassessingtheoffender’sevaluationofcrimeasworthwhile.

Thefollowingtableshowsthemeanscoresfortheoffenderscollectively;perprogrammeminus

thetwooffenderswhodidnotfullycompletetheprogrammesandthe7matched-pairsof

offender-participants.

G-scale–GeneralAttitudeTowardOffending

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceCollectively(n=24) M=34.29(SE=1.52) M=31.9(SE=1.45) 2.37VEP(n=11) M=36.36(SE=2.05) M=36.91(SE=1.26) -0.54STP(n=13) M=32.08(SE=2.23) M=27.08(SE=1.72) 5

MatchedVEP(n=7) M=35.86(SE=3.16) M=36.57(SE=1.87) -0.71MatchedSTP(n=7) M=31(SE=2.28) M=25(SE=2.01) 6

Collectively,therewasadecreaseintheaveragescorespost-programmecomparedtopre-

programme,indicativeofimprovementpost-programmeinthedesireddirection.However,

whenthescoreswereexaminedacrosstheindividualprogrammes,theVEPfailedtoproducea

positivechange.

Interestingly,itwasinoneSTPsession,whentheoffendersweresharingexamplesofcrimes

thattheylaughedatsomeoftheexamplesbeinggiven.

AsimilarpatternwasfoundwiththeanalysesofscoresfortheA&E-scalesasdisplayedinthe

tablesbelow.


144

A-scale–AnticipationofFutureRe-Offending

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceCollectively(n=24) M=11(SE=0.79) M=10.21(SE=0.67) 0.792VEP(n=11) M=9.55(SE=0.61) M=10.64(SE=0.92) -1.09STP(n=13) M=12.3(SE=1.29) M=9.54(SE=0.93) 2.77

MatchedVEP(n=7) M=9.57(SE=1.34) M=10.29(SE=1.34) -0.72MatchedSTP(n=7) M=12.86(SE=1.34) M=9.43(SE=1.34) 3.43

AnSTPoffender-participantmadethefollowingstatementduringasession-“Ihavetherighttoapologise.Itdoesn’tmeanIhavetocometoyourfaceandsaysorry,IcanapologisebynotdoingwhatIdidagain.”

E-scale–EvaluationofCrimeasWorthwhile

Pre-score Post-score DifferenceCollectively(n=24) M=9.08(SE=0.7) M=8.54(SE=0.56) 0.54VEP(n=11) M=10.45(SE=1.06) M=10.64(SE=0.56) -.182STP(n=13) M=7.54(SE=0.87) M=6.62(SE=0.61) 0.92

MatchedVEP(n=7) M=9.57(SE=1.51) M=10.71(SE=0.78) -1.14MatchedSTP(n=7) M=7.14(SE=0.8) M=6(SE=0.65) 1.14

DomainThreeSummary

Ofmainconcerntothestudy,wastheoffender-participants’acknowledgementofharmcaused

tothoseaffectedbytheiractions(V-scale).Therewasapositivechangepost-interventionfor

bothprogrammes,buttoamuchgreaterextentfortheSTP.IncontrasttotheVEP,theSTPalso

providedpositivechangeonthreeoftheotherCRIME-PICSIIscales(G,A&E).Interestingly,

whenalimitednumberofoffenderswerematchedforindexoffenceacrosstheprogrammes,

VEPshowedgreaterpositiveattitudinalchangeonvictimempathythantheSTP.

Itisimportanttonotethatthestudywasbasedonaverysmallnumberalbeitthenumberof

offender-participantswas18%oftheaverageconvictedmalepopulationduringSept2014-Aug

2015.Asapilotoftheinitiativeandwithsuchsmallnumbers,thequalitativedatawas

invaluable.Findingsfromtheparticipants’evaluationsoftheprogrammesfollowinthenext

sectionofthechapter.


145

ProgrammeEvaluation

Thissectionisdividedintoanumberofsectionsthatcovers–programmepreparation;

collaborativeconsultation;facilitatorskillsandpractice;experiences;outcomeandevaluations.

Preparation

Post-programmetheparticipantswereaskedanumberofquestionsaboutthepreparationthey

receivedbeforeparticipating.

Collectivelywithn=40participantsansweringthequestion-57.5%(n=23)ofparticipantsfelt

thattheyhad‘enough’timetothinkabouttheirdecisiontoparticipate;42.5%(n=17)feltthey

had‘plenty’timetoconsider.

Allparticipantswereaskedhowwelltheywerepreparedfortheprogramme,withn=39

responding.Graph15showstheresponsesbyparticipantgroup.

Graph15

50%ofeachoftheoffender-participantgroupsfeltthattheywereprepared‘quitewell’before

theprogrammestarted;whilethegreatestnumberofvictims(46%)felttheywere‘verywell’

preparedfortheprogramme.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Notatallwell

Notverywell

Unsure Quitewell Verywell

Howwelldidthefacilitatorsprepareyou?VEP(n=12)

STP(n=14)


146

OneSTPvictim-participant,intheirfinalcomments–asapost-programmequestionnaireitemwrote-“Thefacilitatorsandtheresearcherwerejustgreat–soprepared.Sorespectful.Soencouraging.”

Attheendoftheprogrammes,participantswerealsoaskedtoratetheamountofinformation

theyreceivedbeforethestartoftheprogramme,andattheend.Theresults,byparticipant

groups,areillustratedbelowingraphs16&17.

Graph16

Again,50%oftheSTPandVEPoffender-participantsfeltthattheyreceived‘enough’

informationbeforethestartoftheprogramme.While43%ofSTPvictim-participantsfeltthey

received‘enough’information.Overall,theVEPoffender-participantsfeltthemostinformed.

Inresponsetothequestion-whatwouldyouchangeabouttheprogramme,oneSTPvictim-participantstated–“Moreinformationabouttheprogrammebeforestartingit–perhapseventheworkbookinadvance?”

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

None Notenough Enough Plenty

Informagongiven-pre-programme

VEP(n=12)

STP(n=14)


147

Graph17

91%ofvictim-participantsfeltasthoughtheyreceived‘enough’informationpost-programme.

50%oftheVEPoffender-participantsmaintainedthattheyreceived‘enough’informationpost-

programme.36%ofSTPoffender-participantsfelttheyreceived‘enough’and36%‘plenty’

informationpost-programme.

Consultation

VictimsoftheSTPwereaskedasimilarquestionpreandpost-programmeaboutwhattheir

preferredmethodofcontactbythePrisonFellowshipfacilitatorswouldhavebeen.Pre-

programmeofthosethatresponded(n=15)tothequestion-

47%(n=7)indicatedthattheywereokaybeingcontactedbyphone;

40%(n=6)indicatedthatwouldhavepreferredtohavebeencontactedinperson,and

13%(n=2)indicatedthattheywouldhavepreferredtobecontactedinitiallybyletter.

Post-programmethevictims(n=14)responsesindicatedaslightchange–

86%(n=12)optedforthepreferredmethodofcontactbyphone,withtheremaining

14%(n=2)optingforcontacttohavebeenmadeinperson.

Thismarkedchangedsuggestedthatthevictim-participantsfeltevenmorecomfortablewith

thewholeprocesspost-programme.

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

None Notenough Enough Plenty

Informagongiven-post-programme

VEP(n12)

STP(n=14)


148

Post-programmeparticipantswereaskedwhetherornottheyfeltthefacilitatorsconsultedwith

them,asanindicationofhowcollaborativetheyfoundtheprocesstobe.Table7showsthe

resultsofeachparticipant-groupofeachprogramme.

Table7 Totally Somewhat Notreally NotatallVEPoffenders(n=12) 8 3 1 -STPoffenders(n=14) 8 5 1 -STPVictims(n=14) 9 4 1 -

Totals(n=40) 25(62.5%) 12(30%) 3(7.5%) 0%

Participantswereaskedtoconsideriftherewasanythingthattheywouldlikedtohavebeen

asked,bythefacilitatorsorresearcherthattheywerenotasked?Mostsuggestedthatthere

wasnot(75%).

TwoSTPoffender-participantssuggested-“Boutmegettingtoknowmemorebuttherewasn’tenoughtimetogetthingsrollingwehad2hours.”“Howdidtheoffenceeffecttheoffenderpersonallyandviceversa.”OneSTPvictim-participantssuggested-“1.HowdoIcopeyearslater.2.Howhasmylosschangedmylife.3.HowdidIgettothepointIcouldforgive.”

CommentsmadebytheVEPoffender-participantstothisquestion,haveallbeenincluded,in

morerelevantsectionsofthechapter.

FacilitatorSkills&Practice

57%oftheSTPvictim-participantsand57%oftheSTPoffender-participantsratedthe

facilitatorsasbeing‘veryskilled’,theremaining43%ofeachparticipantgroup,ratedthe

facilitatorsas‘adequatelyskilled’.

Inresponsetoapost-programmequestionnaireitemaskingaboutperceivedpossiblenegativeconsequencesofRJ,oneSTPoffenderwrote-“TherecanbesomeIbelieveonlyifoffender,victimormediatorisnotequippedwellfortheprocess.”OftheVEP–25%oftheoffender-participantsratedthefacilitatorsas‘veryskilled’,67%rated

themas‘adequatelyskilled’and8%wereundecidedorunsureoftheiropinion.


149

Whenaskedpost-programmetoratehowjudgmentalthefacilitatorsweretheSTPparticipants

Victims(n=11)Offenders(n=12)

NotatallJudgmental Victims(n=3)Offenders(n=2)

NotVeryJudgmental82% 18%

TheVEPfacilitatorsdidnotfairaswell,offenderratingsweremorevaried-

NotatallJudgmental NotVeryJudgmental QuiteJudgmental VeryJudgmental8% 25% 50% 2%

ComplementarydatadidnotclearlyexplainthereasonsforratingsoftheVEPfacilitators.Asa

response,tothequestionaboutwhatparticipantswouldchangeabouttheprogramme,one

VEPparticipantstated–

“FirstIwouldgetridoftheredchairandstopaskingquestionslikeyourinterrogatingsomebody.”Thisoffenderratedthefacilitatorsas‘notveryjudgmental’.AnotherVEPoffenderstated–“Ibelievetheprogramwasgood.Iwouldnotchangeanythingreally.Ibelievethetaskwehadtocompletewerequitesimple.Meandmyfellowstudentswereabletoexpressourselvescompletely.Soitwasgood.”Thisoffender-participantratedthefacilitators‘quitejudgmental’.

Experiences

Alloftheparticipantsfromeachoftheprogrammesfeltthatthey‘totally’(n=30)or‘somewhat’

(n=9)hadtheopportunitytosayandaskwhattheywantedtoduringtheprogramme,except1

VEPoffender-participantwhofeltthathedid‘notatall’havetheopportunitytoexpress

himself.Thisindividualwasthesameindividualwhodidnotfullyparticipateintheprogramme.

Interestinglythisindividualfeltthattheywere‘somewhat’listenedto.

Inresponsetoaniteminthepost-programmequestionnaire,participantswereaskedifthere

wasanythingthattheywerenotaskedbythefacilitatorsorresearcher,thattheywouldliketo

havebeenasked.OneSTPvictim-participantwrote–

“None.IwasverygladthatIwasaskedaquestionbyoneofthefacilitatorsasIwasnotgoingtospeakandwasgladIwasencouragedtousemyvoice.”

85%(n=33)ofparticipantsfeltthattheywerelistenedto‘totally’duringtheirtimeonthe

programmes,with15%(n=6)feelingtheywere‘somewhat’listenedto.Themajorityofthe6–


150

83%thatfelt‘somewhat’listenedtowereoffender-participants.Noneoftheparticipantsfelt

theywere‘notreally’or‘notatall’listenedto.

Post-programme,participantswereaskedhowemotionaltheyfoundthecontentand

disclosures.Theresponses,byparticipantgrouparereflectedbelowinthegraph(18).

BothoffenderandvictimSTPparticipantsexperiencedtheirprogrammeasmoreemotionalthantheVEPoffender-participants.STPvictim-participantswrote-“Idon’tevenknowwhatitwas,Ijustknowwhereittookme.”“It’shelpedmelearntoforgive.”

AnSTPoffender-participanttalkingduringthefocusgroupsaid-“Ilearntthatvictimscarryalotofpain,andmaskalotofhurtandpain…theeffectthatwhatevercrimewasplaceduponthemgetspassedontoothersyouknow…Isawinmyclass,IsawavictimgetrealangryonedayandIsawherpainandherhurtandthroughthatmademeseewow…thewayitcameoutitsort…forasecondIfelt…notviolatedbutvexIwasangrythewaytheycameatmebutallitwas,wasjusttheirhurtandpainasbeingvictimsandtalkingaboutitrightwithactualoffendersyouknowandhearingoffenderstalkabouttheirpunishmentitwasn’tenoughforthisvictimyouknow,soitshowedmethatyouknowsometimesavictimseestheiroffendersbeingpunishedbutthat’sstillnotenough,sothentheirmaskingalotofhurtandalotofpainandtheycarryitfromdaytoday,andthere’sonly,I’malmostsurethatthatenergy’sbeingpassedalongintoavictim’s[anotheroffenderinterrupts].”

Theresearcherobservedhowtheparticipantsstartedtochallengeeachother.InoneSTP

sessionanoffender-participantstatedhowhewasbeginningtobecomeangryat“the

[Corrections]administration.”Anotheroffender-participantusedtheBiblicalstoryusedinthe

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Veryemogonal SomewhatemogonalNotatallemogonal

Howemogonalwasthecontentanddisclosures

VEP(n=12)

STP(n=14)

Vicgms(n=14)


151

STPtostatehowZacchaeusstartedtofindotherstoblame.Another,offendertriedtoadvise

thefirstoffenderthatreallyhewassayingthathewastiredof‘comingtojail’–

“ShowmeyourcompanyandI’llshowyouwhoyouare.AmImybrother’skeeper,ifIwashisrealfriend,Iwouldn’tlethimlietohimself.”

OneSTPoffender-participantstatedthatoffendingwas“…startingtofeelinhuman…excuses,IusedtogooutthereanddothethingsIwasdoing…sametimefindingthatmythinkingisI’mopeningwoundsandtherestayingopen…differenceisnowI’mwillingtogothroughit…”thesameoffenderlaterstated“…wecreateavictimstance,carryitwithusanduseitforourownadvantageandmakeourselvesfeelbetter…”

TheresearcherobservedtheVEPoffender-participantslookingateachotherindisbeliefasthey

watchedanotheroffenderparticipatingintherole-shiftexercise.Duringthissession,anumber

oftheoffenderscriedtearsastheylistenedtoavictim’sperspective(playedbyanoffender)ofa

crime.

Anobservationmadebytheresearcherconcernedtheinfluenceofothersintheprogrammes.

OneSTPoffenderrepeatedlystated,andseemedtobelievethathisoffencewasvictimless.His

peerschallengedhisview,pointingoutforhimwhothevictimsofhisoffencewere.However,

thisdidnothaveasconvincinganimpactontheoffender,aswhenthevictim-participants

challengedhim.Itwasalsoobservedthattheoffendersweregenuinelythankingeachotherfor

makinghonestdisclosures.

ThisalsooccurredintheVEPprogramme,whenoneoffendersuggestedthattheothergroup-membersshould“Justtellthemwhattheywanttohear.”Anotheroffenderstated“TheonlywayIcanhealisbyputtingouteverythingIhavedone…gettotherootofanyproblem…Ijustencourageyou,forustoheal…betterourselvesinanyway,gottabehonest.”

Outcome&Evaluations

BoththeSTPoffender(n=14)andvictim-participants(n=13)ratedtheirsatisfactionwiththe

conclusionoftheprogramme;thecollectiveratingsarepresentedinthepiechartbelow


152

TheVEPoffender-participants(n=12)ratedtheirsatisfactionwiththeconclusionofthe

programme;resultsofwhicharepresentedinthefollowingpiechart.

OneofthedifferencesbetweentheprogrammesisthefinalcelebrationsessionoftheSTP,at

whichguestsjointhegroup-participantsandrefreshmentsareenjoyed.TheSTPparticipants

wereaskedtoratehowimportanttheyfelttherefreshmentstime,attheendoftheprogramme

was.Surprisingly,thevictim-participantsratedthistimeslightlyhigherthantheoffender-

participants.

78%

18%

4%

SagsfacgonwiththeconclusionofSTP

Verysagsfied

Fairlysagsfied

Neither

59%25%

8%

8%

SagsfacgonwiththeconclusionofVEP

Verysagsfied

Fairlysagsfied

Neither

Verydissagsfied


153

Allparticipants(96%)oftheSTPexcept1offender-participant(whowas‘unsure’)said‘yes’that

theywouldparticipateinasimilarprogrammeagain.

67%oftheVEPoffender-participantssaid‘yes’thattheywouldparticipateinasimilar

programmeagain,withtheremaining33%reportingthattheywere‘unsure’.

93%ofSTPvictim-participants(n=13)reportedthatthey‘woulddefinitely’recommendthe

programmetootherpeoplewhohadbeenaffectedbycrime;7%(n=1)reportedthatthey

would‘morethanlikely’recommendtheprogramme.

86%ofSTPoffender-participants(n=12)reportedthatthey‘woulddefinitely’recommendthe

programmetootherpeoplewhohadoffended;theremaining14%(n=2)saidtheywould‘more

thanlikely’recommendtheprogramme.

50%ofVEPoffenders(n=6)saidthattheywould‘morethanlikely’recommendtheprogramme

tootherswhohadoffended;33%(n=4)saidthey‘woulddefinitely’and17%(n=2)were‘not

sure’.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

VeryImportant

QuiteImportant

Neither

Unimportant

ImportanceofTimeforRefreshments

STPVicgms(n=14)


154

Duringthefocusgrouptheoffender-participantswereaskedwhattheythoughtwasthemost

importantelementoftheprogramme–

STPOffender-participants

“MinewasjusthearingfromotherpeoplethatI’venevermet…actuallyhearingemandfeelingtheirpain…struckamaincoreforme.”

“That’s,I’magreeingwithwhat****saidinasensethat,asfarasinteractingwithpeoplefromtheoutside,beingabletoheartheirstoriesandsharemystorywiththemwasoneofthemostimportantfactorsmakingmeunderstand…there’sadifferencebetweencourtjusticeandalsosocietyjusticebecausethecourtsjusthandoutthepunishmentbutthere’snorestorativejusticebeingdoneafterthat…theoffender’sgonetojailandtheonesthathavebeenoffendedarestilloutthere,there’snoclaritybutinthisinstanceitsbeenaformofclaritytotheonethathasoffendedandtheonethat’sbeenoffendedon...”

VEPOffender-Participants

“FormelikeIsaid…wesatdownandwewentthroughtellingourstoryandthenwehadtocomebackandsitdownandbethevictimandtellthestory,soforme,puttingmyselfinthatsituationIthinkwasahumblingexperiencealthoughlikeIsaidwhatIdonetocompensatewaslikekindalikewhatifitwasmychild,howwouldIfeel…soforme…thatroleplayingthingwasitforme.”

“I’llsayformeuminthevictimempathyclass…whatIlearntwas…howIminimizealotandIplayeddownalotofthingswhereI’dsayohitwasjustthis,oritwasjustthatanditsfunnywhenyourecognizeit,whenyou’rethereinfrontofagroupofotherpeopleandthat’swhattheirlookingforandyourecognizeyouuseitalot,likeIheardalotofguysuseitalreadytoday…minimizinghowbigofathingitis,sothatreallybroughtalot,openedmyeyesreallyforthatclass,mostly.”


155

Inresponsetoprogrammechangesthatparticipantswouldmake,thefollowingresponseswere

givenforeachoftheprogrammes–

VEP

42%ofparticipantsstatedtherewas“nothing”thattheywouldchangeabouttheprogramme.

“ItsmyfirsttimebeinginaprogrammelikethisandIwouldnotchangeanythingIwouldliketoseetheclassgolonger.”“IwouldlikefortheOfficerstobemorecommunicativewithfacilitatorsandinmates.”“Betterscreeningforcandidates.”“TheonlythingIwouldchangeis,toputpeopleofsimilaroffencestogetherinaclass,sotheycanrelatealittlebetter.”

STP–Offender-participantresponses

50%oftheparticipantsstatedthatthey“wouldnotchangeathing.”(orwordstothiseffect).

“Theamountoftimespentwiththemeatofthematter,theice-breakerstakeuptoomuchtime.Theyareneededhowever.”“Moretime.Twiceweeklytogointomoredepthanddiscussion.Supportafterclasses.”“Morevictims.”“Atleasttwiceaweek.Ithinkonceaweekmaynotbeenough.”“TheLength”.“Morespeakingaboutmoreinsideproblemswithinandlessofabookprogram.”“Idon’tthinkthere’sanythingthatshouldchangeaboutthecourse,butIwouldlovetocontinuesometypeofsupportsystem.”

Victim-Participantresponses

43%madecommentssuchas“Can’tthinkofanythingat[this]time.”(orsentimentstothiseffect).

“Maybethetime.”“Itwastoshorttime.”“Ithinkperhapsabitmoretimetowardstheend.Perhapsawaytoengagereluctantinmate.”“NothingbecauseIobservedthatthereisflexibility.Thefacilitatorsareopentooffenderconcernsandcomments,butwilllatergetbackontrack.”“Moretime.”


156

Table8showstheoverallsatisfactionratingsforeachprogrammebyeachgroupofparticipants.

Table8 VEPoffender-participants

67%25%8%

(n=8)(n=3)(n=1)

‘VerySatisfied’‘FairlySatisfied’‘VeryDissatisfied’

“Ibelievetheprogrammeisaverysuccessfulclass.”

STPoffender-participants

86%14%

(n=12)(n=2)

‘VerySatisfied’‘FairlySatisfied’

“Theprogramwasexcellent.”

STPvictim-participants

93%7%

(n=13)(n=1)

‘VerySatisfied’‘FairlySatisfied’

“Agreatprogram!!”

Duringthefocusgroupinresponsetowhattheoffenderslikedleastabouttheprogrammesonly

twocommentsweremade,thefollowingfromanSTPoffender-participant-

“FormewhatIlikedtheleastintheSycamoreTree…wastoomuchemphasisontheBible,toomuchemphasisonreligion…Ifoundmoretimecouldhavebeenusedwithweguystalkingaboutourpersonalexperiences…theygavetheexamplesofsomestoriesintheBiblebutliketheywerejustdwellingonthosestoriesandwecouldhavejustusedthatexampleandgoton…becauseitsgonnacomeatimewherethere’sgonnabeguysinthemgroups,theregonnagettherebecausetheyfeeltheyneedtobethereandwhatnot,buttherenotreallyreligiouspeople,theydon’tknowonethingabouttheBible…theirgonnabeinthisgroupandforcedtolistentotheseBiblestories,youknowandallthisemphasisonthisBiblestories,itcanbecomeboringyouknow,itcanbecomeboringtosome,soIthinkmoreemphasis…Iwannatalkaboutme,Iwannatalkaboutwhat’sonmychest,whathappenedtomeinthatsituation…howthat’shadaneffectonmylife’…soIreallydidn’tlikethattoomuch.”

DomainFourSummary

Theparticipants’evaluationsofthephase-oneprogrammeswerepositive.Allparticipantsfelt

‘quitewell’or‘verywell’prepared,with‘enough’or‘plenty’timetohaveconsideredtheir

decisiontoparticipate.Theparticipantsfelttheywereprovidedwith‘enough’,ifnot‘plenty’of

informationbeforeandaftertheprogramme;andthattheywereconsultedwithandlistenedto

duringtheprogrammes.Victimsexpressedhealing,forgivenessfortheiroffendersandfor

themselves,asaresultoftheirparticipation.

Thereweredifferencesintheparticipants’evaluationoftheirindividualprogrammes.TheSTP-

participants(victimsandoffenders)werefarmoresatisfiedwiththeconclusionofthe


157

programmeandexperiencedtheirfacilitatorsasmoreskilledandlessjudgmentalthantheVEP-

participants.Withhigh-levelsofoverallsatisfactionacrosstheboard,theSTP-participantswere

moreinclinedtoparticipateinanotherprogrammeofthesamenatureinthefutureandmore

likelytorecommendtheprogrammetoothers.However,asreportedinthisfirstdomain,the

VEPoffender-participantsreportedbeingmorewillingtomeetwiththeirdirectvictims,thanthe

STPoffender-participants.

VictimandOffenderViewsofRJ&theConferencingExperience

DuringSeptemberandNovember2015tworestorativejusticeconferences(RJCs)wereheld,

thatintotalincluded2directvictims,1witness-victim,2offendersand3supporters.

Datawasobtainedfrom-4pre-conferencequestionnaires(3offenders&1victim);4pre-

conferenceinterviews(with3offendersand1victim);2post-conferencequestionnaires

(completedbyoffenders)and2post-conferenceinterviews(conductedwithoffenders).

Pre-Conference

Of4offender-participantswhoinitiallyagreedtomeetwiththeirdirectvictimsinaconference

–3feltthatthephase-oneprogrammewouldhavepreparedthem‘fairlywell’forthe

conferenceand1‘verywell’.

Inresponsetowhat‘justice’meanttotheparticipants–theoffendersspokeofcorrecting“bad”

behaviour,finding“resolution”andcompensatingvictimssothattheyfind“closure”.Two

mentionedpunishment,whilethevictimspokeofimprisonmentfor“theappropriateamountof

timeandhopefullygettingsomerehabilitation…”

WhatdoyouthinkistheappropriatetimeforRJ?

3participants(includingthevictim)feltthatRJshouldoccurafterimprisonmentoftheoffender.

Twooffendersspokeofhaving“sometimetothink”andtobecome“enlightened…acceptit,

whattheyhavedonewrong.”Thevictimspokeofhaving“timeafter”theoffence.Onlyone

offenderspokeofRJuseduring“courtproceedings”atthe“pre-sentencing”stage.


158

WhatdoyouthinkisthepurposeofaRJC?“Forthevictimstoaddresstheoffender”(statedby1offenderand1victim)Forthevictims’questionstobeanswered–“…tosortofgiveclosure…andclaritytowhyyoudonethings,thenpeoplecanunderstandandcometotermswithit…”(anoffender)Toreceiveforgiveness

Whydidyouagreetoparticipate,andwhatareyourneeds?Victim–“…tomaketheoffenderawareofthelong-termimpacttheircrimeshave,notjustonthevictim,onallthemembersoftheirfamilyandfriends.…Ithinkiftherehadbeenmoresupportaftertheincident,Ifeltthattherewasalotmoreconcentratedonhim[theoffender],notonmyself”

Thevictimfeltthattheoffenderreceivedanappropriatesentence,howeverdidnotfeel–“…justlockingpeopleawayandthrowingawaythekeyisasolution.”

Offenders–“IbasicallyagreedtoparticipatebecauseIgenerallyrunawayfrommyproblemsandIthoughtthatthiswouldbeagoodopportunity…faceupas…challengingandasfrighteningorasscaryasitmightseem…Icangainsometoolsandsomewisdomforthefuturebygoingthroughthisprocess.”

“…initiallyinthebeginning…togetparole,that'sbeingtruthful,butnowIcansee…oneofmyvictimsactuallyagreedtotalktome,itmademefeellikeohallrightcool…yesIwannadoitbecauseitwon'thurt…toaddressmyproblems…”

“Idon'tthinkIknowallmyneedsI'mlearning…butwhatIhavelearntisthatIneedtolisten,Ineedtotrytounderstandandrespect…IcansaythatfromwhenIwasalittlechildI'vebeenthroughalotmyselfandIalwaysusedexcusesforwhyIamwhereIam…”

Thoughtsoftheotherparty-Thoughtsoftheoffenceandtheoffendercausedthevictimtofeel“nervous”andtobe“veryscaredofmennowingeneral.”

Theoffenderslargelysharedininterviewhowtheytriednottothinkabouttheirvictims.One

statedhowever,thatsinceparticipatinginthephase-oneprogramme,hehadthoughtabouthis

victims.

Post-Conference

Bothoffendersfeltthatthephase-oneprogrammepreparedthemwellfortheconference–

“TheSycamoreTree…helpedmetobecomemoreaccountable,beingopen,justmeetingvictimsingeneral…itopenedupmyeyestosomeofthethingsthatIneverreallythoughtaboutbefore.”


159

Bothfeltthattheconferencewasforbothparties–“…likemeetingaperfectstrangerandsharingthesameexperiencethatwewentthroughandIguessit'sprettymuchsharingthethoughts,seehowitaffectedthem,seehowitaffectedmyselftoandtojustgetsomeclarity.”

“…Ithinkitwasaboutalotofdifferentthings,youknowitwasachanceformetoexplaintomyvictimswhatwasIdoing...Ithinkitwasachanceforthemtogetsomethingoffoftheirchest,toexpresssomeoftheirfeelingsandsomeoftheiremotionstowardsmeandIthinkoverall,themeetingwastobetterhelpbothpartiesbeabletomoveonsotospeak.”

Tothequestion-Whendoyouthinkisthebesttimeforarestorativejusticeconference?Bothoffendersheldthesameopinionaspre-conference–onefeltitwouldbebestafter“thinkingtime”inprison.Theothermaintainedpre-sentence–“…evenlikepre-adult…let'stryitoutforsomebodyyoungtoo.[Askedwhy]Ijust,Ireallyfeellikeitreallyimpactedmesomuchsometimes,that…IwonderifIwould’vemetsomeofthesepeoplelikethislongtimeagoandsatdownandspokewiththem…couldithavechangedsomeofthethingsthatIdid,soIreallydothinkit'sapositivethingforpeopletojusthearvictim’sshare…thetragediesthey'vebeenthrough,itgivesabetter,abettersenseofsympathyorempathyitjustpaintsabetterpicture.”

Bothoffendersfelttheyhad‘plenty’oftimetomaketheirdecisiontoparticipateandbothfeltit

wasthe‘right’timebetweentheiroffenceandtheconference(questionnairedata).

Askedabouttheirmainreasonsforparticipating–“Mymainreasons…was,thefactthatIstillseethesepeopleonceIgetout,andthatway,onceit'sallputonthetableIdon'thavetoseethemandstilllive[in]darkness…sonowwiththisnewvictoryIhavecreatedafriendshipinsteadofhatred.”

“OkayoriginallyImeanIjustwantedtodoitbecause,youknownormallyIwouldhaverunfromit,sooriginallyIthinkIjustkindofforcedmyselfto…facethem…beingmoreaccountableformycrimes,andevenjustgivingthosepeopleanopportunitytoletmehaveit,ifthat'swhattheywantedtodo.”

Askedwhatwasmostpositiveaboutparticipatingintheconference?“Honestly,thebestthingwasprobablybeingacceptedbythevictimsandbeingIgavethemahugthatwas,thatwasahighlight,yeah.”

“Ithinkitliftsaburdenoffmyshoulders…abigburden,IwishIwouldhavehadmorevictims…forthesimplefactof,ifIwanttogoback…Iknowthatthere'snotgoingtobeanimositytowardsme.Iknowthatwewillbeabletotalkfreely,hadwenotmetwewouldn'thavebeenabletotalk,that'sthepositiverightthere.”

1offenderindicatedfeeling‘verypleased’theother,‘pleased’aboutmeetingthevictimsoftheiroffence;bothwere‘verypleased’aboutbeingaskedtomeetwiththeirvictim(questionnairedata).


160

Askedwhatwasmostnegativeaboutparticipating?“Thatwouldhavebeen[the]walkoutthere.YepjustthenervesleadinguptoitIwouldsay,notknowingexactlyhowitwasgoingtogo,yeah.”

“Ididn'tgetanynegativeoutofit.Notatalltherewasnonegative.”

Onthequestionnaire,theoffenderswereaskedifknowingwhattheyknew,havingbeen

throughaconference,iftheywouldstillagreetoparticipate–bothindicated‘yes’.Theywere

both‘verysatisfied’overallandwiththeoutcomeagreement;theybothfoundtheconference

‘somewhatemotional’andthatthey‘totally’hadtheopportunitytosaywhattheywanted.They

felttheywere‘totally’listenedto,consultedwithandbothfelt‘verysafe’.

AskedaboutthedifferencetheyfeltRJcouldhaveoncrimeinBermuda?(andseparately)

WhatdifferencedoyouthinkRJcouldhaveforvictimsandoffendersinBermuda?

“Ithinkitcouldlessencrime…becauseitmakesyouthinkaboutotherswiththerestorativejusticeprograms,IthinkitcouldactuallymakelesscrimeinBermuda.…Idon'tthinkitmakeanybodyworse,soIthinkonlygoodcouldoutofrestorativejustice…”“…couldstoptherevolvingdoor…itmayhelpwithjobandhousing…sometimesmoneyistheproblem,sometimeswhereyoustayistheproblem…anoffendercandosomethingandbeout,andyoucanseethatpersonagainand,youcouldstillliveinfearfortherestofyourlifedependingonthecrime…ifyou,gothroughthevictimempathyprogram,restorativejusticeIbelievethatit…wouldeasethevictimsmindalot...”

“Ithinkthatitcouldhelptolessencrimeifitisimplemented,likeIsaidbeforeintheschoolsandthingslikethat...”

“Ithinkthatitcouldhaveadifference,oneway,youneverreallygetanopportunitytositdownandaddresssomebodywhohasvictimisedyou,soIthinkthatcanopenalotofdoorsandsomepositivethingscouldcomeoutofit,itmightnotbeforeverybody,butIthinkthatitcouldaidintheyoung…aidintrustingmore…communicatingwithpeopleaboutdifferentthings,andvictimscouldlearnsomestuffabouttheoffenderandviceversa.”

Askedforanyfinalcommentsthattheymightwishtomakeattheendoftheinterview?“IwouldjustliketosaythatIthoroughlyenjoyedthewholeprocess,thestartofittheSycamoreclassandasI'veneverdoneanythinglikethisbeforeIdothinkthatit'sprobablyoneofthebestthingsaround,thehighlightofmyrehabilitationingeneralthat’sall.”

“…IenjoyedtheconferenceIjustwishthereweremorevictims,notwish,butitwouldhavebeennicenowI'vebeenthroughitIknowwhatit'slikeso,there'splentyvictimsinmycase,ifanother[victimwouldliketomeetwithme]Iwoulddoit.”


161

Oneoffenderfeltthattheprisonwas‘veryappropriate’asasettingfortheconference,the

otherfeltitwas‘appropriate’(questionnairedata).Theyfelttheyhad‘plenty’or‘enough’

informationbothbeforeandaftertheconferenceandwere‘quitewell’preparedbythe

facilitator.Thefacilitatorswereratedas‘veryskilled’and‘veryimpartial’.Oneoffenderfeltthat

theinformalrefreshmentstimewas‘veryimportant’,theother‘neither’importantor

unimportant.

Theoffendersshowednofurtherincreaseinvictimempathyafterparticipatinginaconference;

howeverthiswasduetothemhavingachievedmaximum(cognitive)empathyattheendof

theirphase-oneparticipation.

DomainFiveSummary

Theoffendersthatparticipatedintheconferenceswerepleasedtheyengagedandfeltthatthey

gainedfromtheexperience.Forone,themostuncomfortableaspectwashisnervousnesswhen

goingintotheconference.Theotherwasdisappointednottohavehadmorepeoplepresent.

Neitheroftheconferencesresultedinreparationagreements,asneitherofthevictimsrequired

anythingmoreoftheoffendersthanthedialogue.

Thischaptersetouttoachievetheaimsof–exploringvictims’andoffenders’opinionsgenerally

oftheCJSandspecificallyoftheirowncases;andtoexploretheexperienceandeffectsofthe

experimentalpilotprogrammeforbothvictimsandoffenders.Insodoing,boththequantitative

andqualitativedataexaminedsimultaneously(wherepossible)yieldedpositiveeffectsforboth

ofthemainstakeholders.Thedataindicateddifferentdegreesofeffectforeachphase-one

programmeregardingtheoffenders’levelofvictimempathypost-programme.Thisfurther

suggesteddifferentdegreesofrestorativeorientationineachphase-oneprogramme–which

willbediscussedfurtherinthenextchapter.Therichnessofthedata,expressedbyallthe

participants,reducedanypotentialeffectsoftheresearcherandpointedtoimplicationsfor

futurepracticeandpolicy.Thesemattersarediscussedindetailinthefollowingchapter(7)–

Discussion&Conclusions.


162

v CHAPTER7–DISCUSSION&CONCLUSIONS

“Onthebasisofourfindings,theinmateisthemostlikelytobewillingtoaccepttherestorativeapproach…ifhehasfamilyrelationsbeyondtheprison,actualgoalsafterbecomingreleased,

andconsequently,theinmateislessaffectedbytheprocessofprisonization…”(Szego&Fellegi,2013,p19).

Bermudahasseenhighratesofincarcerationinitsshorthistoryhavingfosteredapunitive

responsetocrime.AsaBritishOverseasTerritorytheexistenceofsocialinequitieshave

permeatedfromonecenturyintothenextdespiterapideconomicgrowthandself-governance.

Astheinternationalmovementtowardstheinclusionofrestorativejustice(RJ)intoestablished

adversarialcriminaljusticesystems(CJS)hasbeentakingplace,thisactionresearchsoughtto

explorehowRJmighthelptorepairtheharmcausedbycrimewithBermuda’sconvicted

population.Precedencewasgiventothereparationofrelationships,healingofvictimsand

increasedempathyofoffenders,withareductioninrecidivismananticipatedconsequential

outcomeoftheprimarygoals(recognizedbyMcCold,2004).

Asasmallcountrywithpervasiveinterconnectednessofitspopulation,itwasexpected,asthe

findingsbegintoindicate,thatRJcouldbeusefultocreatingahealthiersocietywhenharmhas

beencausedbycrime.Thischaptersetsouttodiscussthemainfindingsoftheactionresearch

inrelationtopastempiricalresearch,theoryandwithconsiderationofRJaims.Insodoingit

addressesthefinalobjective-Toevaluateandcontrasttheprogrammesusedinordertodraw

implicationsforfuturepracticeandpolicyinBermuda,forinclusionofRJ.

TheoristsofRJhaveurgedpractitionerstorejectoneformofpracticeovertheneedsofthe

stakeholdersinindividualcases(e.g.Bazemore&Umbreit,2005;Roberts,2004;Umbreit,2000)

andensurefocusonthecorevalues/aimsofRJ(e.g.DeMesmaecker,2011;Menkel-Meadow,

2007;Shaplandetal,2007;UN,2002).Assuchrestorativejusticeconferencing(RJC)was

adoptedasanumbrellatermforpracticeinthesecondphaseofthecurrentaction.Thisfurther

adheredtotheadviseoftheUN(2002),drawingattentiontotheimportanceofthesocial

impactofcrime,asRJCencouragestheinvolvementofallstakeholders(e.g.Umbreit,2000;UN,

2006)includingsecondaryvictimsandcommunitymembers.Victim’ssupportsystemscanalso

impactthevictim’sdecisiontoengagewithRJ(e.g.Bolivar,2013).


163

Empiricalresearchhasfoundhigh-ratesofsatisfactionforRJamongvictimsandoffenders(e.g.

Poulson,2003,inMenkel-Meadow,2007;NOMS,2012;Strangetal,2013;Umbreitetal,2005),

althoughforoffenderssatisfactionwasfurtherdependentonvictimsbeingpresent(e.g.Strang

etal,2013).Timingisacomplexissue,asithasbeenfoundthattherearelow-ratesof

participationwithlessseriousoffenceswherevictimsaresimplynolongerbothered,andmore

seriousoffenceswhentherecanbefearofre-victimisation(e.g.Coates&Gehm,1985,Wyrick&

Costanzo,1999,citedinMenkel-Meadow,2007;Umbreitetal,2005).Yet,RJhasbeenfoundto

bemosteffectivewithseriouscases(e.g.Hagemann,2003;Strangetal,2013;Umbreitetal,

2005;Umbreit&Vos,2000;UN,2006;Wachtleetal,2010);andthetimebetweenoffenceand

RJhasbeenconsideredrightforthosethatparticipate(e.g.Shaplandetal,2007).

Inprisons,theuseofvictimawarenessprogrammesinpreparationofdirectvictim-offender

dialoguehasbeenfoundtobebeneficial(Szego&Fellegi,2013;Barr,2013)–theapproach

adaptedbythecurrentactionresearch.TheUN(2006)alsoadviseincrementaldevelopmentof

RJwhenitisbeingintroduced.EmpiricalresearchontheuseofRJpracticesinprisonshasfound

thatitcanproduceimprovedperceptionsofproceduralfairnessforprisonersandvisitors,

increasethelegitimacyofsentencesamongstprisonersandunderstandingoftheregime’s

functiontochallengeoffendingbehaviour(Barr,2013).Ithasbeenreportedtoimprove

relationshipsbetweenstaffandprisoners(Szego&Fellegi,2013;Barr,2013)andproduce

positivebenefitsforstaff,byincreasingmotivationfortheworkandreducingburnout(Szego&

Fellegi,2013).AsanaimofRJ,increasedvictimempathy(Feasey&Williams,2009)or

‘sensitivitytovictims’plight’(Barr,2013)canestablishaccountabilityforoffendingbeyond

legality.

Itisimportantfromtheoutsetofthischaptertostatethatthenumberofpeopleinvolvedinthe

actionresearchwassmall.Thereisnoextrapolationintended,howeverasapilotofaRJ

initiativeinBermudathefindingsprovideevidenceofthosewhoactuallyparticipated,and

pointersforfuturepracticeinsmall,highlyinterconnectedsocieties.Italsoeffectively

demonstratesthefeasibilityofintroducingaRJapproachtocorrections,andtoexploring

attitudesamongoffendersandvictims.


164

ViewsofRJ&theCriminalJusticeSystem(CJS)inBermuda

AsaresultofthedichotomyoftenportrayedintheliteraturebetweentheCJSandRJ,the

currentresearchsoughttoexploreopinionsoftheexistingCJSandforRJ.Opinionswere

generallycriticaloftheCJS,withthemostconsistentpositiveperceptionbeingthat–theCJS

waseffectiveinbringingpeoplewhohavecommittedcrimestojustice.Therewasan

overwhelmingreceptivenesstoRJinBermudaamongstthoseparticipatingintheresearch.This

wasreflectednotonlyintheirsatisfactionwiththecurrentactioninitiative,butalsowiththe

participantsreportedwillingnesstohaveparticipatedinRJ,iftheyhadbeengiventhe

opportunity,atdifferentstagesofthecriminaljusticeprocesspre-conviction.Nonetheless,

qualitativedataindicatedadesireforbothrestorativeandcriminaljusticeresponsestocrime,

amongsttheoffendersandvictims.Analysisoftheoffenders’perceptionsoftheCJSpostphase-

one/pre-conferencebegantoshowhowRJparticipationcouldimproveconfidenceintheCJSin

Bermuda.Shaplandetal(2007)obtainedsimilarfindingsintheiractionresearchusing

randomisedcontroltrials,wherevictimandoffenderswhoparticipatedinconferencinghad

moreconfidenceintheCJS,thanthosethathadnot.Barr(2013)foundthatafterprisonershad

participatedinRJ,theyhadanincreasedperceptioninthelegitimacyoftheirsentences.This

wasreflectedinthecurrentstudythroughqualitativeandquantitativedata,astheoffender-

participantsspokeoftheirincarcerationhavinglittlecomfortorcompensationforthevictimsof

crime,andreflectedinthepre-conferencedatawheretheoffenders’opinionsofstatements

suchas–‘SentenceshandeddownbytheCourtsarefair’and‘TheCJSrespectstherightsof

thoseaccusedofcommittingacrimeandtreatsthemfairly’-becamemorepositive.Theleast

positiveperceptionofoffenderspostphase-one/pre-conferencewasthat–Thereisadequate

supportforvictimsofcrimeinBermuda.

Inpersonalcasesofcrime,thevastmajorityofvictimsreportedtonothavinghadthe

opportunitytogiveevidenceincourtorprovideaVictimImpactStatement(VIS)(itcouldhave

beenthecasethatsomeoffencesoccurredbeforeVISwerelegislated).Onlytwovictims

reportedhaving‘somewhat’gottheopportunitytosaywhattheywantedtoincourt.The(STP)

victim-participantswerethehighestrating(93%)groupofparticipantsthatwould‘definitely’

recommendtheprogrammetootherpeopleaffectedbycrime.


165

TheExperimentalModel:Phase-OneProgrammes(STP&VEP)

TheactionresearchsetouttoimplementRJCwithintheDepartmentofCorrections(DoC)asa

newinitiativeandwithoutoffendersbeingpermittedtousetheirengagementforpurposesof

parole.Twonewprogrammeswereintroducedtoactasprerequisitesforconferencing.Itwas

intendedthattheprogrammeswouldraiseawarenessoftheharmcausedbycrimefromthe

perspectiveofvictimsandencourageaccountabilityonthepartoftheoffendersbyincreasing

victimempathy.Thetwoprogrammeshadbothsimilaritiesanddifferences.Amajordifference

wastheinclusionofunrelatedvictimsintheSycamoreTreeProgramme(STP),reflectiveofa

‘relational’levelofrestorativepractice(Toews,2006);whereastheVictimEmpathyprogramme

(VEP)hadoffendersworkingtogether,withtheonlyadditionalinteractionbeingwiththeDoC

facilitators.Bothprogrammesproducedpositiveattitudinalchangeinregardstovictimempathy

(asmeasuredbytheCRIME-PICSII).However,therewasamarkeddifferencebetweenthe

programmesinthedegreeofattitudinalshiftachieved.TheSTPshowedthegreatershiftforall

theoffender-participants(n=13;1.46),incomparisontotheVEP(n=11;0.64).However,whena

smallsampleofoffender-participantswasmatchedforindexoffencefromeachprogramme,the

VEPindicatedpositivechange(n=7;0.43)wheretheSTPoffender-participantsscoresshoweda

negativechange(n=7;-0.15).Furtherstill,onalltheotherscalesmeasuredbytheCRIME-PICSII

(e.g.A-scale-anticipationofre-offending)foralloftheoffender-participants,theVEPshowed

negativepost-programmechange,wheretheSTPscoresallyieldedpositivechange.Thepositive

attitudinalchangeonallscalesmeasuredbytheCRIME-PICSIIfortheSTPwassimilartothat

foundbyFeasey&Williams(2009).Theyfoundoverallpositiveattitudinalshiftsfor4,439male

offenderswhoparticipatedintheSTPtobestatisticallysignificant(amongstalllevelsofprison

security).

ThecontradictioninfindingscouldbeindicativeoftheVEPresemblingarehabilitative

programmemorethanarestorativeprogramme.Wheretheheavyfocusonvictimempathy

ignoredanyotherfactorsthatcouldimpacttheoffenders’recognitionofaccountabilityand

needforchange.

Anadvantageofgroup-workisthatquestionsandchallengesfrompeersaremorereadily

acceptedthanfromthefacilitators.TheVEPoffender-participantsviewedthefacilitatorsas

judgmental,asthefacilitator’srolewastoguidetheoffenders’exploration;objectionsor


166

discomfortofwhichwasmostobservedduringtherole-reversalexercise.ForsomeintheVEP,

opposedtorecognisingtheirresponsibilitytheymorereadilydeflectedthisontothefacilitators

asDoCstaff.ThiswasevidentinoneVEPoffender-participant’scommentobservedinasession

–“Justtellthemwhattheywanttohear.”However,withtheinclusionofvictim-participantsin

theSTP,itwasobservedthattheoffenderswerewillingtotakechallengesfromthevictim-

participantsmorereadilythantheirpeers.

TheCRIME-PICSIImeasuresthecognitiveaspectofempathy(“…theabilitytorecognizeand

understandotherperspectives…”-Feasey&Williams,2009,p8)andwhilethesame

psychometricswasusedforbothprogrammes,theadditionalelementofunrelated/surrogate

victimsworkingtogetherwiththeoffendersintheSTPmayhavealsocreatedanaffective(“…

vicariouslyexperiencetheemotionsofothers.”-Feasey&Williams,2009,p8)developmentof

empathythatcouldhavehadaninfluenceontheotherattitudinalscalesmeasuredbythe

CRIME-PICSII.Feasey&Williams(2009)alsofound,despitepositiveshiftsonallscales,thatthe

relationshipbetweenscaleswerenotalwaysclear104.Thefindinginthecurrentresearchcould

furtherreflectHagemann’s(2003)findings,whereinaprisonprogrammefocusedonvictim

harmbutvoidofvictim-participants,Hagemannsuggestedoffenderswereonlyabletorestore

theirrelationshipwiththemselvesandtheir(immediate)society(-friends,family,prisonstaff

andotheroffenders).Thedegreeofemotionexperiencedinthephase-oneprogrammeswas

lessfortheVEPoffender-participants,thantheSTPoffenders,andwasgenerallyexperiencedas

moreemotionalforthevictims-participantsthantheoffenders.Albeit,nottheirdirectvictims,

theSTPoffender-participantswerelikelyabletodevelop/restorethethirdrelationship

highlightedbyHagemann(2003)thatbeing-therelationshipbetweenselfasoffenderand‘the

victim’.DisclosuresmadeduringSTPsessionsrevealedthatsomeoftheoffendersandvictim-

participantsweredistantrelatives.Othercommonalitiesincludedvictim-andoffender-

participantshavingexperiencedthesameseveremedicalconditionsandothersharedtraumatic

experiences,whichbroughtthemclosertogether.Italsoseemedtoprovidethevictim-

participantswithagreaterunderstandingoftheoffenders’lifeexperiencesthatwouldhave

contributedtotheirfunctioningandoffendingbehaviour.

104Suchasoneparticulargroup(remandprisoners)showingthegreatestamountofpositivechangeincomparisontootherprisoner-groupsonallscalesexceptthevictim-empathyscale.


167

Yetdespitethesefindingsandindicators,slightlymoreVEPoffender-participants(83%)thanSTP

offender-participants(77%)indicatedawillingnesstomeetwiththeirdirectvictimspost-

programme.Ofcoursewithsuchsmallnumbersitisunclearwhetherthisoutcomemightbe

attributabletotheprogrammeoroccurredbychance.ItisalsopossiblethattheVEPoffender-

participantshadaneedforthesamesocialexchange(Maruna&McNeil,2008)experiencedby

theSTPoffender-participantswhoworkedwithcommitteemembers.Whatwasapparentwas

thatifthephase-oneprogrammesweretoactassuitabilityassessmentsforconferencing,this

wouldbemoreeasilygaugedfromtheVEPbecause,aswithrehabilitativeprogrammes,the

focusisentirelyontheoffender.Whilstobjectivelyconsideredavalidstatement,atfacevalue,

theresearcherisremindedoftheirownpotentialbiases,asaforensicpsychologistworkingwith

rehabilitationwithinacorrectionsfacilityandthereforeessentiallyanagentoftheCJS.

However,asoneinthesameperson,theactionresearcherwasalsomotivatedtoincorporateRJ

intothecorrectionssystem.

Notinitiallyafocusofattentionforthecurrentresearch,Feasey&Williams(2009)intheirstudy

ofprisonersparticipatingintheSTPusingtheCRIME-PICSIIpsychometrics,founddifferent

degreesofattitudinalshiftamongsttheprisonerstheyexaminedbasedonthesecuritycategory

ofestablishmentstheprisonerswereheldin.Atthisjuncture,thecurrentresearcheralso

soughttolookatdifferencesonCRIME-PICIIscoresbycategoryofestablishment-security.Only

theSTPwasconductedintheWestgatemaximum-medium-securityestablishmentandthe

minimum-securityFarmfacility105.Ascouldbeexpected,overall,theoffendersfromtheFarm

facilityhadlargerdegreesofpositiveattitudinalchangethantheoffender-participantsat

Westgate(seeAppendix5-fortheCRIME-PICSIIpreandpostscoresoftheFarmandWestgate

STPoffender-participants).ThiscouldsuggestthattheSTPisbestrunattheFarmfacility,

howeverthisbringsadditionalissues.AstheFarmfacilityisbasedattheEastendoftheisland,

itmayprovedifficulttorecruitsufficientvictim-participants,asthoseresidingtotheWest

maybediscouraged.106Also,thevastmajorityofoffendersattheFarmfacilityaregenerally

closertorelease,thanthoseatWestgate.

105Thiswasbecausetheestablishmentregimeandfacilitatorresourcesweremoreamenable–VEPwasdeliveredduringthedaywhenmanyprisonersattheFarmfacilitywouldbeoutengagedinexternalactivities,suchascharityworkandSTPwasdeliveredintheevenings.106DuringrecruitmentthePrisonFellowshipfacilitatesweremindfulofthevictim-participantsareaofresidencewhenallocatingthemtotheprogrammesheldatthedifferentfacilities.


168

Retentionforbothprogrammeswashigh(VEP100%;STP82%)howeverofthetwooffender-

participantsthatdidnotcomplete(1non-starter&1droppedout)bothwereveryclosetotheir

releasedate.Thiscouldindicate,asShaplandetal(2007)suggestedfromtheirstudy,that

convictedoffendersclosetoreleasearelessmotivatedtoparticipateinanyformofRJprocess.

However,inlinewithDeMesmaecker’s(2013)postulationthatRJparticipationisbasedlesson

instrumentalreasonspost-sentencethanpre-sentence;inthecurrentstudytheoffenderswere

advisedthattheirparticipationintheprogrammeswouldnotbeincludedintheirdossierfor

parole,butwerestillmotivated.Thetwooffendersmentionedabove,werebeingreleasedat

theendoftheirsentence.

RetentionfortheSTPvictim-participantswasalsohigh(88%)withonlyonedropoutandone

non-starter.Theonevictim-participantthatfailedtostarttheSTP,appearedtotheresearcher

tobeexperiencingdisenfranchisedgrief,107basedonthevictim’sdisclosureduringassessment

withthePrisonFellowshipfacilitator(inthepresenceoftheresearcher).Theindividual

expressedconcernsofjudgmentatbeingtheparentofanoffenderandfeelingsofsadnessand

self-judgedhypocrisyregardingvictimization.Therewasalsoapprehensionaboutenteringa

prison.Unfortunatelyasthisindividualfailedtoattend,itwasassumedthattheirconflictandor

fearkeptthemaway.Interestingly,avictim-participantwrotethefollowing,post-programmeas

aquestiontheywishedtheyhadbeenasked-“Haveyouhadafamilymemberincarceratedor

involvedinserious/fatalcrimes?”Theonevictim-participantthatdropped-outafterattending

thefirsttwosessions,informedthefacilitatorsthattheywerehavingtowithdrawbecauseof

unforeseenincreasedworkresponsibilities.

TheSTPcommunity-participantswerevictimsofburglary,childhoodsexualabuse,robbery,

domesticviolence,violence(i.e.assault,wounding)andsurvivingfamilyvictimsofmurder;

somehadexperiencedmulti-incidentsofvictimization.

107Underthesubtitle‘DisenfranchisedVictims,DisenfranchisedGrief’Miller(2008)describeshow“Familiesofmurdervictimswhowereinvolvedindrugs,prostitution,domesticviolence,orothercriminalactivity,orwhomaybemembersofethnically,economically,orsociallymarginalizedgroups,maysufferdisenfranchisedgrief…Suchdisenfranchisedmournersmayreceivelittleornosupportfromthecommunity.”(p144).


169

EffectsforSTPVictim-Participants

Barr(2013)founda‘compellingneedforvictimstobepermittedtoentercorrectionalfacilities,

however,Feasey&Williams’(2009)studyoftheSTPdidnotincludeanydataonvictim-

participants.Inthecurrentactionresearchdatawascollectedontheopinionsandexperiences

ofvictim-participants.

Victim-participantsreportedfeeling‘very’(71%)or‘quite’safe(relatedtophysicalsafety)during

theirparticipationandfoundtheprison‘veryappropriate’(43%)or‘appropriate’(57%)asa

settingfortheprogramme.Basedonpre-programmequestionnairedata,53%ofvictims

‘disagreed’or‘stronglydisagreed’thattherewasadequatesupportforvictimsofcrime,orthat

the‘CJSmeetstheneedsofvictims’(52%disagreedorstronglydisagreed).

ForeachofthethreeSTPsduringtheactionresearchphase,theresearcherwasableto

administerthepost-programmequestionnairestothevictim-participantsattheircollective

debriefingsessionswiththefacilitators(conducted1-2weeksaftercompletionofthe

programme).Furthercommentswerealsomadeduringthesemeetingsanddirectlytothe

researcher.Fromthesediscussionsanddatacollected(includingobservations),thevastmajority

ofvictim-participantsexpressedhavingexperiencedhealingandclosure.Whileunrelatedtothe

offenderstheyparticipatedintheprogrammewith,thevictim-participantsstillhadmotivations

andexperiencedoutcomessimilartodirectvictimsthatparticipateinfullRJinterventionswith

thedirectoffender.Forexample,researchhasshownthatvictimsoftenwanttohavecontact

withtheoffender,andtoexpresstheimpactoftheoffenceonthem(Umbreitetal,2005;De

Mesmaecker,2013).ThesemotivationswereevidentfortheSTPvictim-participantsinthe

disclosurestheysharedandquestionstheyaskedoftheoffendershypotheticallyorsometimes

fromabyproxyposition.Itwasalsoevidentinthequestionnairedatawithstatementssuchas–

“Givesperspectiveofcrimeandpeoplewhocommitcrime,breaksthefearfactorandseparationfromoffendersandvictims.”“Itgivesanopportunitytolistenandspeaktruefeelings.”

“ItwasaverygoodprogrammeIthinknotfortheinmatesonly,formyselfaswell.Oneoftenwonderswhypeoplecommitcrime,withoutrealizingwheretheycomefrom(background,etc).”


170

Bolivar(2013)foundthatvictimswhoagreedtoparticipateindirectvictim-offendermediation

(VOM)often“…tendedtopayattentiontothecircumstancesthatsurroundedtheoffenceor

theroletheythemselvesplayedintheoffence.…evenwhentheoffenderwasunknownto

them.”(p203).Althoughtheoffenderswerenotthoseresponsibleforthecrimesagainstthem,

theSTPvictim-participantsstillgainedasenseofwhytheiroffencemayhavehappened.This

wasevidentfromtheircommentsandfeedbacktheygotfromtheoffender-participantswhen

theyworkedinpairsontheprogramme,andwrittenstatementssuchas-

“Anopportunitytolookwithin.Anopportunitytoforgive...Helpsyoulookatyourrole.”

“Itgivesavoicetothehurtandpainandallowsbothvictimandoffendertotakeresponsibility.”

“Itallowsyoutoseebothsidesofthesituation.”

OfdirectRJconferencing,Shaplandetal(2007)foundthat69%ofvictimssaidtheyhadabetter

understandingoftheoffence.

AsawholesessionontheSTPisfocusedonforgiveness,thevictim-participantsalsoexpresseda

lotaboutreleasing‘something’almostspiritualandintangible;theysometimesstruggledto

articulatepreciselywhattheyfeltwasreleased,butvaluedit–

“Idon’tevenknowwhatitwas,Ijustknowwhereittookme.”

“Icameintotheprogrammetodoitforme.IreceivedfarmorebenefitsthanIexpectedtoreceive.Ifeltafundamentalshiftinmyinternalworld.IfounditfarmorebeneficialthanIexpectedittobe.Itwasagreatgift.”

Therewerealsodirectreferencestoforgiveness,thatinturnresonatedwithBolivar’sresearch

ofVOMinwhichitwasalsonotedinregardstovictimsdesiretounderstandthecircumstances

oftheoffenceandtheirrolethat–

“Importantly,thisalsoimpliesthatvictimsneedtounderstandtheroletheythemselvesplayedintheoffencebyelaboratingself-blamefeelings.”(p207).

“Anditalsohelpsmeasavictimtolearnhowtoforgive.”

“Ittakesthejudgmentandcondemnationoutoftheequationandopensthedoortoforgivenessandself-forgiveness.“


171

Animplicitassumptionoroversightmadebytheresearcheratthestartoftheinitiativewasthat

theoffendersofpeoplevictimizedwithinthecommunitywouldhavebeenapprehended.108

However,anadditionalbenefitoftheSTPwasthatthosevictimswhoseoffenderswerenever

identifiedcouldstillgainhealingfromparticipatingintheprogramme.DeMesmaecker(2013)

highlightedtheepitomeofRJbeingtherepairofpsychologicalharmandharmtorelationships.

Shaplandetal(2007)foundfromtheirresearchofconferencing,thatover50%ofvictimsgained

asenseofclosurefollowingparticipation.TheSTPvictim-participantsexpressedthebenefits

thattheyreceivedfromtheprogramme.Theirexpressionsweremostcondenseduringthefinal

sessions,whentheirgratitudefortheprogrammeandforprovidingtheopportunityfortheir

healingwassharedwiththoseontheprogrammeandtotheinvitedguestsaspartofthe

session8celebration-

“ProgrammesliketheSycamoreTreeareneededsoclosurecantakeplace…”

“Tohelppeoplefacethethingstheyhaven’tbeenabletodealwithontheirown.”

“IenjoyedthisprogramIlearnedalotaboutmyself.”

93%ofthevictim-participantsreportedtobeing‘verysatisfied’withtheprogrammeoverall.

Atalive-televisedconference(12.11.14)onRJinBermuda’sCityHall(independentoftheaction

research),avictim-participantofthefirstSTPpubliclydeclaredherinvolvementinthe

programmeandhowpositivetheexperiencewasforher.Suchtestimoniescouldaidchangeof

attitudesinthecommunity;andwaswhyrecognitionofaneedtodisseminateinformation

abouttheschemebecameincorporatedintotheaction-research.

Whilenotadirectaimoftheactionresearch,theoutcomeslendthemselveswell(seeBazemore

&Maruna,2009)towhatresearchisshowingabouthowdesistancefromcriminalbehavior

works.Maruna&McNeil(2008)intheirchapterreviewingtheresearch,layoutthefactorsthat

contributetoex-offendersdesistingfromcrime.Theynotethatitisaprocess,agewith

mediatingfactorssuchasstableintimaterelationships,parentingandemploymentprovide

protectiveelements,asthingsthatoftenoccurinmid-adulthood.However,theopportunityto

108Alackofconsiderationlikelyexistsforvictimsofdeceasedoffenderswhohavenothadtheopportunityforreparation,butremainaffectedbytheincident.Thiswasnotknowntobethecaseforvictimsinthecurrentstudy,butisapointforreflectioniftheprimaryaimofaRJinitiativeisthereparationofharm.


172

givebacktotheircommunityorsocietyhelpsex-offenderstoestablishanewpositivepersonal

andpublicidentity(Bazemore&Maruna,2009);andRJcanhelpinprovidingthisopportunity.

Maruna&McNeil(2008)pointoutthatinhelpingothers,offenders/ex-offendersgainintrinsic

rewardandsocialrespectability.Theyexplainthatsuchtypesofactivitiesandexperiencesbuild

socialcapital,relationshipsandnetworksthatfillavoidfortheex-offender;ithelpsthem

developasenseofpurpose,meansforredemptionandlegitimizestheirclaimtochange.Allof

thisencouragesdesistanceandsocialinclusionfortheoften-disadvantagedex-offenderwho

previouslyexperiencedtheircommunityhostile,unforgivingandostracizing.

CommunityHealing

ReparationofrelationshipscanbeachievedwithfullRJinterventions.Whetherornotvictims

andoffendersareknowntoeachotherbeforeanoffenceoccurs,itisarguedthattheyare

broughtintoarelationshipwitheachotherbyvirtueoftheoffenceandthesharedexperience.

InBermudatheneedtorepairrelationshipscanbefurthercompoundedbeyondreparationof

harmtothedirectstakeholders,butalsovitalbecauseofstakeholderproximityandbecauseof

thesocialandfamilialinterconnectedness.Relatedly,VanStokkom(2013)theorizedthatitcan

bethe(macro)communitythatholdmaliceorvengefulfeelingstowardsoffenders.TheSTP

seemedtoaddressacoupleoftheseissues,ifunintentionally.Inthefirstsessionparticipants

discusshowtheywillworktogether(almostdrawingupanagreementofgroundrules)and

brainstorm/thought-showertheeffectsofcrimeonvictimsandoffendersseparately.This

essentiallyledtotheconclusionthatoffendershavealsobeenvictims;whichbegantocreate

bondsamongtheparticipants(whichconsistentlydidnotfullymaterialiseovertlyuntilaround

session4).Reflectedinareoccurringcriticism(largely,butnotexclusivelybytheoffenders)that

theprogrammewastooshortandtherewasnotenoughunstructuredtimeallowedfordialogue

betweentheparticipants.However,itwasfurtherevidentinthecontinuedrelationshipsthat

wereformed,asatleast25%(knowntotheresearcher)ofthevictim-participantsstartedtovisit


173

theoffenderstheyhadworkedwithintheprogramme,aftertheprogrammewasover.109This

occurrencewasalsoreflectedinthebenefitsvictim-participantssaw-

“Creatingnewconnections–bondsbetweenvictimsandoffenders.”

“Themainbenefitisinbringingtogether“offenders”n“victims”Ittakesalotofcourage–forbothsides–inmatesmustwonderifthey’regoingtobeblamed&shamed&victimsmayworrythey’llbefurthervictimised.Andneithertranspired!Thishelpstodilutethe“us&them”divisiveness.Headingtomoreopenness&anavenuetohealing.”

ResearchingVOM,Bolivar(2013)foundthatonereasonvictimsrefusetoparticipateinRJ(with

directoffenders)revolvesaroundafearoftheoffenderornegativeevaluationsofameeting

suchasrefusaltoentertainthedevelopmentofrelationshipswiththeoffenderpost-

intervention.Thevictim-participantstalkedabouthavingsharedtheirexperiencesonthe

programmewithfriendsandfamily.Itwashopefulthatthiscouldstarttohaveaneffecton

perceptionswithinthecommunity.OftheSTPvictim-participants–93%saidthattheywould

‘definitely’recommendtheprogrammetootherpeoplewhohadbeenaffectedbycrime,the

remaining7%saidthattheywould‘morethanlikely’recommendtheprogramme.

WhilemanyoftheSTPvictim-participantsexpressedfeelingbetterabouttheirexperienceof

victimizationaftertheprogramme;atleastonespokecandidlyaboutstillcarryingnegative

emotions(notasaresultoftheprogramme,butabouttheiractualexperienceofvictimization).

Thisindividualofchildhoodtraumaspokemorereadilyabouttheneglectordenialofnotbeing

recognizedasavictimandnotbeingprovidedwithappropriatesupport,thanofnegative

feelingstowardtheactualoffenderoroffence.ThiscouldindicateasVanStokkom(2013)

suggests,thatfailingtorespondtoinjustice(ormarginalizedrecognitionofextendedvictim

impact)candiminishvictimsordevaluetheirpain.Similarly,itwouldalsobeunjusttonegate

theoffenders’ownexperienceofvictimhoodinanunequalsociety,whereyoungblackmen

remaindisadvantaged.Aspreviouslymentioned,theSTPacknowledgedthatoffendershavealso

beenvictims,whichtheVEPdidnotdo.

109Neitherthefacilitatorsnorresearcherhadanyinputintheestablishmentoftheserelationships;theyneitherencouragednordiscouragedthemoncetheybecameaware.Seemingly,alltherelationshipswereplatonic.


174

ParticipantRecruitment

Anotherinterestingfindingwiththevictim-participantsinBermudawastheprevalenceof

Bolivar’s(2013)conceptof‘ideology’.Thisconceptseemedtoplayamajorrolewiththe

recruitmentofvictim-participantsfortheSTP(andasenseofdutywhenitcameto

conferencing).Themajorityofthevictim-participantsweremembersofPrisonFellowshipor

communityactivists–peoplecommittedandinvolvedwithorganizationsthatworkedforthe

bettermentofthesociety.Thispartlyspoketothesocialandculturalvaluesoftheisland.

Howeverarelatedissueforfuturepracticeisthatinsuchasmallcountrythecontinued

availabilityofunrelatedvictimstoincarceratedoffenderswouldlikelybecomeunachievable.

Thismayfurthernecessitatetheneedforconferencing.

Itwasanticipatedthattheremightbesomeresistanceonthepartoftheoffenderstoengagein

theinitiative,especiallyastheywereadvisedthattheirparticipationcouldnotbeusedfor

purposesofparoleandwastotallyvoluntary.Surprisinglythiswasnotfoundtobethecase,and

waslikelyassistedbythepromotionoftheprogrammesbythefirstoffendersthatparticipated.

OftheSTPoffender-participants86%saidthattheywould‘definitely’recommendthe

programmetoothersandtheremaining14%would‘morethanlikely’.Thisdidoccur,as

offendersbegantoaskiftheycouldbeapartoftheSTPandwoulddisclosetotheDoC

programmesstaffthattheyhadbeentoldabouttheprogrammebyotherprisoners.

RecommendationwaslessforthcomingfortheVEP,withonly33%sayingthattheywould

‘definitively’recommendtheprogramme,50%reportingthattheywould‘morethanlikely’

recommendtheprogrammeand17%being‘unsure’.

Of5offendersinitiallyapproachedtoseeiftheywerewillingtomeetwiththeirdirectvictims

postphase-oneparticipation,80%wereagreeable.110Theoneoffender,whodeclinedafter

indicatingawillingnesstomeetwithhisdirectvictimsaftercompletionofthephase-one

programme,disclosedthatthedirectvictimofhiscurrentoffencehadbeenanextendedfamily

memberandforthisreasondidnotwishtopursuetoconferencing.

110Engagementwithoffendersfirst,isadvocatedintheguidanceforvictimsensitivepractice(Umbreit,2000).


175

ProgressionontoRestorativeJusticeConferencing(RJC)

BetweenSeptemberandNovember2014,twoconferenceswereheld,onewithawitness-victim

andoffender,theotherwith2victims,3supportersandtheoffender.Thefirstconferencehad

onefacilitator,thesecondinvolvedtwo;theresearcherobservedboth.111Oncevictimswere

identifiedthePolice(BPS)facilitatorsmadetelephonecontactwiththem,invitingthemtoa

meetingaboutRJinrelationtotheoffenceagainstthem.Initialphonecontactwasacceptable

tothevictimsashasbeenfoundwithpreviousresearch(e.g.Shaplandetal,2007).Atotalof

fourseparatecasemeetingswereheld.

Oftheothertwocasesthatdidnotresultinaconference,onevictimdeclinedtoparticipate;

andintheother,thevictimagreedhowever,duringthepreparation/assessmentphasethe

offenderdecidedtowithdraw,thisisdiscussedfurtheroninthischapter.Oftheinitial4cases

datawasobtainedfromthefouroffendersandonedirectvictimpre-conference,andthetwo

offenderspost-conference.

Alloftheconferenceparticipantsinterviewedand/orcompletedquestionnairespre-conference

feltthatjustice(asaresponsetocrime)shouldincludebothpunitiveandrestorativeaspects.

TwooffendersandthevictimfeltthatRJshouldnotbeconsidereduntilafterimprisonment

whentheoffenderhashadsome“thinkingtime”andthevictimhasbeenaffordedsome

recoverytime.OnlyoneoffenderthoughtthatRJshouldbeusedaspartofthecourtprocess

andmadeavailableforjuvenile/youngoffenders.

Theparticipants’viewsofwhatthepurposeofconferencingwas,didnotmarkedlydifferfrom

theirreasonsforagreeingtoparticipatepre-conference.Bothpartiesthoughtthatitwasfor

themselvesandtheotherparty.Thevictim’sreasonsforparticipatingwere–toshowthe

offendertheimpactoftheiractions,andtobeheard(tohaveavoice).Umbreitetal(2005)

identifiedthefirstpointhere,asthesecondchiefreasonvictimsparticipateincasesofserious

violence.Thevictimspecificallyexpressedhowatthetimeofthecourtcaseminimalsupport

wasreceivedandallfocuswasconcentratedontheoffender.

111Theincreaseofconferenceparticipantswasbeneficialforonethefacilitator’sdevelopmentandconfidence,butcoincidental.


176

Theoffenders’(n=4)reasonsforagreeingtoparticipate(pre-conference)presentedasseven

themes–tohelpthevictim(29%);tobeheldaccountable(18%);tocontributetotheir

rehabilitation(18%);toapologize(12%);forforgiveness(12%);tochangehowthevictims

viewedthem(6%)andtorepairrelationships(6%).ThechiefreasonsUmbreitetal(2005)found

forviolentoffendersagreeingtoparticipateindialoguewiththeirvictims,weresimilartothe

currentoffendersreasons,butincludedreasonsregardingspirituality.Violentoffending

accountedfor75%ofthecurrentconferencingoffendersample.

Ininterviewpost-conference,theoffenders’(n=2)reasonsforparticipatingbecame

reducedtothreethemes–beingheldaccountable;tohelpthevictims;proximityand

relationshiprepair.Itwasexpectedthatthelatterreasonwouldbeparticularlyimportantin

Bermuda.Shaplandetal(2007)foundintheirstudyofconferencingthatvictimsandoffenders

ofseriousviolentcaseswelcomedtheopportunitytodiscussissuesonthebasisofhavinglinks

suchasmutualrelationshipsorlivingclosebyeachother.Oneoffendermadethefollowing

writtenstatement-

“Mymainreasons…was,thefactthatIstillseethesepeopleonceIgetout,andthatway…Idon'thavetoseethemandstilllive[in]darkness…Ihavecreatedafriendshipinsteadofhatred.”Inthepost-conferencequestionnairestheoffendersalsowroteaboutgainssuchas-“victims[gaining]closure”;creating“anenvironmentofempathyandunderstanding”“reliefandacceptance”and“achancetoreflectonthesituationyouareincarceratedfor…”

Bothoffenderswere‘verypleased’tohavebeenaskedtoparticipateinaconference;however

ashasbeenfoundinpreviousresearch(e.g.Shaplandetal,2007)thepresenceofvictimscan

makeadifferencetotheoffender’slevelofsatisfactionwiththeprocess.Whenaskedhowthey

feltabouthavingbeenaskedtomeetwiththevictims(complementarydata),oneoffender

indicatedfeeling‘verypleased’theother,‘pleased’.Thelatteroffendercommentedinthepost-

conferencequestionnaireandininterviewabouthisdisappointmentofnothavinghadmoreof

hisvictimspresent–“…IenjoyedtheconferenceIjustwishthereweremorevictims,notwish,

butitwouldhavebeennicenowI'vebeenthroughitIknowwhatit'slikeso,there'splenty

victimsinmycase,ifanother[victimwouldliketomeetwithme]Iwoulddoit.” Thepositivein

thiswasthattheoffenderrecognizedtherippleeffectofhiscrimeandthenumberofpeopleit

likelyimpacted.


177

Bothoffendersininterviewpost-conferencemadereferencetorecidivism.Onefeltthathadhe

participatedinRJearlierinhislife,hemighthaveceasedtocommitasmanycrimesashedid.

TheotherfeltthatRJcouldhelppreventothersfromreoffendingandreducecrimeinBermuda.

Fromobservationoftheconferencesandfollow-upconversationswiththeconference-victims,

theywerelargelysatisfiedwiththeprocess.Theyfeltthattheywereprovidedwithsufficient

informationandpreparationbeforetheconferenceandwelcomedthefollow-updiscussion.

Eachconferencewentwell,intermsofthehonestandopendialoguethatwashadandall

participantsremaininguntiltheend,includingtheinformalrefreshmentsection,inwhichmore

informaldialoguecontinuednaturally.Theoffencesagainstthedirectvictimswerecommitted

intheirhome.Assuchtheirinitialmaininterestwastoknowthattheyhadnotbeentargeted.

Receivingtheanswerstotheirquestionsappearedtoprovideasenseofrelief.Inboth

conferencesaftersomeinitialdialogue,andverbalexpressionsofanger(inonecase),the

victimsseemedtobecomemoreconcernedwiththeoffender’srehabilitationandgenuinely

concernedfortheoffender’sfuture-fortheoffender,theoffender’sfamilyandforthe

community.Therewerephysicalembracesfollowingoneconference(attheoffender’srequest

butreciprocated)andapledgetoprovidesupportandencouragementtotheoffenderonce

releasedintheother(seeAppendix4,forthenewspaperarticle(29thDec2015)onthelatter

conference).Therewerenorequestsforreparationbeyondtheencouragementoftheoffender

torefrainfromreoffendingoncereleasedandtocontinueengagementwithrehabilitation.The

offendersinbothconferencesextendedapologies.

Whatseemedtoberequiredmostforthevictims,wasunderstandingofthecircumstancesof

theoffence;knowledgeoftheoffenderandtheircircumstances,andanopportunitytoaddress

theoffender.Asoneoffender-supportersaid–“Thisisthemissingpiece.”Referringtothe

society’sresponsetocrime,rehabilitationandreparation.Braithwaiteetal(2013)found

culturaldifferencesbetweenAustraliaandJapanintermsofsocialvalues(lesssothanbetween

victimsandoffendersintra-culturally)regardingRJ.Withalimitednumberofactual

conferences,thevaluesofthoseinterviewed-victimsandoffenders(whetherornotagreeing

toparticipate),beginstosuggestthatmuchvalueisplacedon‘victim’svoiceandrehabilitation’,

and‘victim’sforgivenessandreintegration’respectively.


178

Withdrawals&Refusals

Therewererelativelyfewrefusalsfromvictims,112butthereasonsfortheseseemedconsistent

withpastresearch.Twovictimsofpropertycrimethatdeclinedtoparticipateinaconference

aftermeetingwithafacilitator(andtheresearcher)bothstatedthattheywouldconferwith

theirfamiliesbeforemakingafinaldecision.Itwasdeducedthattheirdecisionnotto

participate(confirmedbyone)wasduetothembeingdissuadedbytheirfamily(Bolivar(2013)

reportsonthisphenomenon).However,thiswasalsoinlinewithpreviousresearchregarding

propertycrime(e.g.Umbreitetal,2005)thatparticipationratesdecreaseovertime.Thiswas

evidentbythedeclineofvictimsfromearlieroffencesandacceptancebymorerecentvictims,

ofthesameoffender.

Inanothercase,asBolivar’s(2013)findingsprofiled,thevictimfeltthattheyhadresolvedthe

incidentforthemselvesconcludingthattheoffenderwassolelytoblame,andviewingthe

offendernegatively.Thevictimalsofeltthattoomuchtimehadpassedsincetheoffence,and

commentedthathadtheofferbeenmadeclosertothetimeoftheoffencetheywouldhave

likelyparticipated.Timinghasbeenfoundtoeffectvictims’willingnesstoparticipate,relatedto

motivationtoparticipatebecauseofthelessseriousnatureofanoffenceandthedegreeof

physicalinjuryincurred(Umbreitetal,2005).Itcouldberemissforthefacilitatorand

researchertosuggestthatthevictimhadnotresolvedtheoffence,howevertheirevaluationof

thevictim’sexpressionwasnotsuggestiveofsomeonehavingreconciledorashavingresolved

theaftermathoftheirvictimization.Otherinformationsuggestedthattheremighthavebeen

moretotheoffencethanwasbeingdisclosedintheinterviewsbythemainstakeholders(i.e.

thattheoffenderandvictimwereknowntoeachother),whichmayormaynothavebeen

revealedatthetimeofthecourtcase.Circumstancesthatarenotilluminatedduringthecourt

processcould,incasesofpost-sentenceRJ,allowforfullopendialoguethatcouldredeemand

assistthereparationofallinvolved,ifthoseinvolvedarewilling.

Asthemajorityofoffendersincarceratedwereblackmales(Riley,2013),thiswasalsothecase

withthetotalnumberofconferencesthatwerenearlyheldduringtheperiodinwhichthe

actionwasresearched.Inpreparationforconferencesonepatternthatbegantoemergewas

112Oneoftheactualconferencecaseshadmultiplevictims.


179

theneedforsomeformoffamilyreparationconferencing.Pre-existingfamilydynamics

influencedtheoffenders’decision-makingandmotivesforhavingconferencesand/orfamily

membersassupporters.Inonecasetheoffenderrequestedaconference/meetingwiththeir

parentsbeforetheconferencewiththeirvictims.Theoffenderstatedthathehad

offended/takenadvantageofhisfamilydespitetheircontinuedsupportandexpressedaneed

fordialoguewiththemthathefelthewouldavoidifhehadtowaituntilhewasreleased.In

anothercase,afterinitiallyagreeingtomeetwiththevictim,theoffenderwithdrewbecauseof

familyissuesthathewantedtoresolve.Inthelattercaseitalsobecameapparenttothe

assessing-facilitatorandresearcherthattheoffendermightusetheconferencetotryand

addressfamilialwoundsfromthepastthatcouldhavebeenoffensivetothevictim.These

occurrenceswerealsoindicativeofTuminetal’s(1992)findingregardingtheabsenceandlack

ofsupportofblackparentsinthecriminaljusticeprocessoftheirchildren.Asadults,the

offendersstillhadissuesseekingorwithfamilysupport.Inbeingresponsive,theinitiativebegan

incorporatingadditionalpreparatoryinterventionsasrequiredtomeettheneedsofthe

offendersandtheirsupporters,inlinewiththetypeofguidanceproposedbyUmbreit(2000).

Braithwaite(1989)highlightedthedistinctionbetweenstigmatising-shamingandreintegrative-

shaming;withthelatterinvolvingarejectionofthebehaviour(offence)opposedtotheperson,

andawelcomingbackintothefold.Iftheoffenders’significantothersareinvolved,as

importantpeopletotheoffender,thiscancreatemoreaccountabilityfortheoffenderand

thesepeoplecanhelpmonitortheoffender’sbehaviouroncereintegratedintosociety.

InasmallplacesuchasBermuda,thestigmatisationofcriminalbehaviourweightsheavily,not

onlyontheoffenderbutalsotheirfamily.Assuch,considerationofToews(2006)‘Levelsof

RestorativePractice’maybemoreappropriateforconceptualisationinBermudathanMcCold’s

(2000).Withthefocusonrelationships,ToewsVenndiagramincorporatesthreegroups–

victims,offendersandtheoffender’sfamily,surroundedbyanoutercirclerepresentativeofthe

community(illustratedinthediagrambelow).TheinitialrejectionofToewstheorywasbased

onitappearingtogivetoomuchemphasisonoffenders,aboveandbeyondthevictims.What

theevidenceofthecurrentresearchbegantoshowwasthatalackoffamilysupport,possibly

continuedlackofsupport,couldhinderoffenders’motivationtoparticipateinRJ.


180

Toews(2006)Figure2.VenndiagramofLevelsofRestorativePractice

Duringthewritingofthisthesis,familymembersoftheoffendersthathadparticipatedinthe

STPwererequestingorbeingidentifiedbyPrisonFellowshipBermudatoparticipateintheSTP

asvictim-participants.Identifyingthemselvesasvictimsofthecrimescommittedbytheirsons

orofothers.Thiscouldsuggesttheneedforaprogrammethatinvolvesoffendersandtheir

families,oronethatrecognisesdisenfranchisedgrief.

Recommendations:IssuesforRJPractice&Policy

ThisactionresearchwasalsoconductedtoinformpracticeandpolicyinBermudaforthe

inclusionofRJ.Thisisaddressedintheremainderofthischapter.

ContinueduseoftheSTPwithintheDepartmentofCorrectionsasaphase-oneinterventionis

recommendedforanumberofreasons,notleastbecauseitcanprovidehealingforvictimsin

thecommunityaffectedbycrime,butalsoasameansofgreateraccountabilityforoffenders.It

canhelpoffendersassesstheirpreparednessandwilltoengageindialoguewiththeirdirect

VictimNeeds

OffenderFamilyNeeds

OffenderNeeds

Community

1

2

31.SociallyRestorative

2.RelationallyRestorative

3.IndividuallyRestorative


181

victims.Itisusefulforthosevictimswhoseoffendershaveneverbeenidentified113orasan

alternativeoptionofvictimsupportwhentheoffenderrefusestomeetwiththevictimoftheir

crime.AsfoundinBarr’s(2013)study,theoffendersinthecurrentstudyappreciatedcontact

andhonestdialoguewithcommunitymembersaffectedbycrime;andanynewprogramme

developmentshouldincludethisaspect.

ItisalsorecommendedthattheDoCinpartnershipwiththeBPS,continuetooffervictimsand

offenderstheopportunityfordirectdialogue,intheformofconferencingthatcaninvolveall

stakeholdersaffectedbythecrime.

Practice

TheSTPyieldedpositiveattitudinalchangeintheoffender-participants,onallthescales

measured(withtheexclusionofthe‘probleminventory’)bytheCRIME-PICSII.Whileusedby

theactionresearch,theCRIME-PICSwastoremainthepropertyoftheDoC,anditis

recommendedthattheassessmentcontinuetoformpartoftheprogrammeevaluation.

Whatthisresearchsuggestsisthatitisimperativetoensurethatoffender’srelationshipswith

theirintendedsupportersareadequateforconferencingbeforeapproachingthevictims.Itmay

benecessarytoofferfamilyreparationinterventionbeforeanRJC.Alternatively,one-to-one

conferencingmaybemoreappropriate.Furtherbasedonthekeyroleplayedbythefamilyto

ensuringoffenderparticipation,itisrecommendedthattheoffendersandvictimsoftheSTP

havetheopportunitytoinvitetheirfamilymemberstotakepartinthefinalcelebrationsession.

OneconcernwiththeSTPwasthepotentialforthefacilitators,directlyorindirectly(bynot

managingthediscussions)toevangelise.ThisisdiscouragedbyPrisonFellowshipInternational

andshouldbenoted.ThefirstSTPoffender-participantswarnedthatasyoungeroffenders

wouldparticipatetheywouldlikelybedeterredbythereligiouscontentifthiswerenot

appropriatelymonitored.Itshouldalsoberecognisedthatthevaluesofthebiblicalstories113Facilitatorswouldalwaysneedtobemindfulthatunidentifiedoffenderscouldstillbeincarceratedfordifferentoffences,andinadvertentlycomeintocontactwiththevictims.Offendersarecautionedaboutthedisclosureofoffencesforwhichtheyhavenotbeenconvictedandtheresponsibilityoffacilitatorstoreportanysuchdisclosures.


182

portrayedarenotlimitedtotheChristianfaith.CautionisurgedthatRJdoesnotbecome

synonymouswithreligion.

Bothconference-offendersratedthefacilitatorsas‘veryimpartial’.TheDoCfacilitatorwho

facilitatedthetwoconferenceswasalsoafacilitatoroftheVEP.114Thisissuggestiveofthe

processbeingmostinfluentialinhowtheoffendersviewedthestaff,thantheindividualstaff

member’spersonally;asagentsoftheCJSorsymbolicofauthority.Thisfurthersuggests

contrarytoSzego&Fellegi’s(2013)recommendation,thatprisonstaffworkingintheirown

facilitiescanfacilitateconferenceswithoutissuesofimpartialitybeingraised.115Further,the

involvementofDoCandBPSpersonnelcanhelptofosterbetterrelationships,includingthose

withthecommunitymembers(asfoundinSzego&Fellegi’s(2013)study).Itcouldfurther

encouragethedevelopmentofotherRJpracticeswithintheagencies.Hagemann(2003)

assertedthatthesustaineduseofRJincorrectionswouldlikelybedependentonbuyinfrom

othercriminaljusticeagencies.Duringthewritingofthethesis,oneoftheDoCfacilitatorshad

startedaninitiativeconductingfamilygroupconferencingwithfamilies,thecommunityand

offenderssoontobereleased.

Policy

Whatwouldbeinvaluable,andbegantooccurjustbeforetheresearchwascompleting,was

victimsfromthecommunitydirectlyorindirectly(throughathirdparty)approachingtheDoC

wishingtoexploretheopportunityofmeetingwiththeinmateoftheoffenceagainstthem.It

wasapparentthatthenewspaperarticlescoveringtheinitiative(andpresentationsgiven)were

reachingthepublic.Theaddedbenefitwasthattheseapproachesfromthecommunitywerefor

veryseriousoffences,astheyweresurvivingfamilymembersofmurdervictims.Itwouldnotbe

appropriateforfacilitatorstoreachouttothesevictimsdirectly(albeitonebenefitofasmall

communityagainistheinterconnectednessthatcouldfacilitateacceptabledirectcontactsfrom

the‘right’people);butitwouldbeperfectlyacceptableforthemtomaketheapproachifthey

wereawareoftheopportunity.Therefore,disseminationofinformationandpromotionofthe

scheme,andfutureschemesisvitaltoraisepublicawareness.

114ThesecondfacilitatorwasfromtheBPSandthiswasknowntoallinvolvedintheconferenceincludingtheoffender.115ThiscouldalsobeanotherproductofthelevelofsocialinterconnectednessofBermuda.


183

SincetheintroductionofAlternativestoIncarceration(AtI)toBermuda,aconceptusedto

reducemassincarceration,suchmethodshavebeenhailedasrestorative.Thesemethods

adoptedbygovernmentoperatetoreducethepunitiveresponsestowardsoffenders,by

reducingtheuseofincarceration(e.g.mentalhealthanddrugcourt;electronicmonitoring)but

donothingtoaddresstheharmcausedtotheothermainstakeholder–thevictim.These

methodsmaintainfocusontheoffenderandassuchremainrehabilitativeandbasedonstate

control.Itisonthebasisofthisthatthecurrentresearchadvocatesfortheimplementationof

fullrestorativejusticepractice.AssuggestedbyUmbreit(2000)referringtoallformsofvictim-

offenderdialogueas‘conferencing’couldenablepracticestobemore‘dialoguedriven’than

‘process-orsettlement-driven’andengendertheethosofbeingmostresponsivetotheneeds

ofthosemostaffectedbyanoffence.“Weareproposingtheuseof“restorativejustice

conferencing”asanumbrellatermtoincludeallformsofdirectrestorativecommunication

betweencrimevictimsandoffendersthatisfacilitatedbyoneormoreimpartialthirdparties.…

allthedifferentformsand“models”havestrengthsandlimitations.Byembracingamulti-

methodapproach…wewillbefarmorelikelytodrawuponthestrengthsofallwhileminimising

theirlimitations.Mostimportantly,amulti-methodapproach…ismorelikelytorespondtothe

uniqueneedsofindividuals,communitiesandtheirculture.”(Umbreit,2000,p23).

Theimportanceoffamilies,tooffendersandvictims,andissuesaroundstigmatisation

highlightedinthisresearch,alsospeakstotheneedforcommunityinvolvement.Themicro-

communityreferringtothesupportsystemsofthemainstakeholdersandwitnessorsecondary

victimstocrimesshouldnotbeexcludedormarginalisedinthepracticeofRJ,orbyanyagencies

oftheCJS.Inrecognitionofthis,whilstmaintainingfirstregardfordirectvictims,thecurrent

actionresearchadvocatestheuseofadefinitionforRJthatacknowledgesthecommunity

involvementsuchasMarshall’s(1998)–

“RestorativeJusticeisaprocesswherebypartieswithastakeinaspecificoffencecollectivelyresolvehowtodealwiththeaftermathoftheoffenceanditsimplicationsforthefuture”(p.28).Basedonthefindingsofthecurrentresearch,victimsarelargelydissatisfiedwiththeCJSin

Bermudaanditisrecommendedthatconsiderationbegiventothesignificanceofdevelopinga

Victim’sCharter,tolegislatetherightsandentitlementsofthosepeopleaffectedbycrime.IfRJ


184

istobecomeincorporatedintotheexistingprocess,theofferofRJcouldbeincludedinthis

charter.

InlightofexistinginequitiesthatexistinBermuda,itishighlyrecommendedthatany

implementationofrestorativejusticepracticesarenotbasedonanycriteriathatcouldleadto

theexclusion(ordiscrimination)ofanysectorsofthepopulation;unlessindividualexclusions

arebasedonriskassessmentsindicativeofpotentialre-victimizationofthoseharmedbycrime.

Equally,asthepopulationofBermudaistoosmalltoyieldnumbersnecessaryforanalysisof

statisticalsignificanceandrandomisedcontroltrials,withoutaprotractedperiodoftime,

alternativesshouldbeconsidered.FutureResearchcouldmorerigorouslyexaminevictimand

offendersperceptionsoftheCJSandRJbetweenthosethatparticipateinconferencingand

thosewhorefuse.Offenderscanalsobetrackedpost-releasetoassessthenatureandratesof

re-convictions,post-conferenceinvolvementcomparedtonon-RJinvolvement.Itwouldalsobe

highlybeneficialforfutureresearchtomeasurethepsychological(traumatic)effectsofcrimeon

victims’preandpost-intervention,asawayofqualitativelyexaminingthepositiveeffects;

whichcanalsodeterminecostsconsideredastangibleforpolicymakers.

CanRJbringpeople(victims,offendersandaharmedcommunity)closertogetherintoshared

responsibilityandaccountability?Certainly,thecurrentresearchhasprovidedexamplesofhow

thiscanbeachieved.Assuchitcouldalsoengenderagreatsenseofsocialcontrol.AsRJbegins

togrowinBermuda,futureresearchcouldexaminehowsuchexamplesofpatriotismcanbe

fostered.WiththeendorsementoftheCommissioner,theDoCwillcontinuetoprovideRJ

interventions.

Conclusion

Fromareviewoftheliterature,thecurrentstudyappearstobethefirstconductedexamining

RJinacorrectionssettingwithinasmalldependentterritory.WhileRJhasbeendiscussedin

Bermudaforsometime,thisactionresearchhasbeenthefirstsystematicapplicationofany

formoffullyorientatedrestorativeintervention.Itmaynotbecoincidentalthatsincetheaction

startedandhasbeenpublicisedagreatermomentumhasbeengenerated,withotherCJS

agenciesbecomingmoreproactiveintheirpursuitofrestorativejusticeimplementation.The

currentthesishascontributedtotheresearchwithfocusonthedifferentialneedsofasmall


185

communitywithahighlevelofsocialconnectedness,systemicinequitiesandtheidiosyncrasies

ofdependentterritories.Althoughtheresearchinvolvedrelativelysmallnumbers,thestartof

theinitiativeyieldedpositiveresultsforthoseinvolved,andcouldhavefurtherpervasiveimpact

onthecommunity.


186

Statues

BermudaCodeAmendmentAct2001

References

Andrews,T.(2012)WhatisSocialConstructionism?TheGroundedTheoryReview,Vol.11(1),39-46.

Bacon,J.R.(2010)MakingProgressinRestorativeJustice:aQualitativeStudy.MScThesis:

UniversityofCambridge.Availableathttp://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/making-

progress-in-restorative-justice-a-qualitative-study/.AccessedFebruary4th2014.

Barr,T.S.A.(2013)PuttingVictimsinPrison.RestorativeJustice:AnInternationalJournal,Vol.1

(3),389-413.

Bazemore,G.&Umbreit,M.(2005)AComparisonofFourRestorativeConferencingModels,in

Johnstone,G.(eds)ARestorativeJusticeReader:Texts,Sources,Context.UK:Willan,pp.225-

243.

Bazemore,G.&Maruna,S.(2009)RestorativeJusticeintheReentryContext:BuildingNew

TheoryandExpandingtheEvidenceBase.VictimsandOffenders,Vol4,375-384.

Beck,A.(1996).ThePastandtheFutureofCognitiveTherapy.JournalofPsychotherapyPractice

andResearch6(4),276–284.

Bell,J.(2015)PilotMentalHealthCourtsSeenasSuccess.Availableat

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20150822/NEWS/150829904.Accessed30thNovember

2015.

Bolivar,D(2013)ForWhomisRestorativeJustice?RestorativeJustice:AnInternationalJournal,

Vol.1(2),190-214.

Braithwaite,J.(1989)Crime,ShameandReintegration.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.


187

Braithwaite,J.(1999)RestorativeJustice:AssessingOptimisticandPessimisticAccounts,Crime

&Justice:AReviewofResearch,Vol.25,1-27.

Braithwaite,J.(2002)RestorativeJusticeandResponsiveRegulation.Oxford:OxfordUniversity

Press.

Braithwaite,J.(2002a)SettingStandardsforRestorativeJustice.BritishJournalofCriminology,

42,p563-577.

Braithwaite,V.,Huang,H.&Reinhart,M.(2013)‘LoveThyNeighbour’Values,Needs,and

WillingnesstoParticipateinRestorativeJustice:aSurveyofAustralianandJapaneseVictimsand

Offenders.RestorativeJustice:AnInternationalJournal,Vol.1(1),91-121.

Burr,V.(2003).Socialconstructionism.(2ndEdition).EastSussex,UK:Routledge.

Byrdon-Miller,M.,Greenwood,D.&Maguire,P.(2003)WhyActionResearch?ActionResearch,

Vol.1(1),9-28.

Carifio,J.&Perla,R.C.(2007)TenCommonMisunderstandings,Misconceptions,Persistent

MythsandUrbanLegendsaboutLikertScalesandLikertResponseFormatsandtheirAntidotes.

JournalofSocialSciences3(3),106-116.

Christie,K.(2000)ReviewofMeredith,Martin,ComingtoTerms:SouthAfrica’sSearchforthe

Truth.H-SAfrica,H-NetReviews.Availableathttp://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php

?id=4008.Accessed23rdMarch2013.

Coyne,I.T.(1997)SamplinginQualitativeResearch.PurposefulandTheoreticalSampling;

MergingorClearBoundaries?JournalofAdvancedNursing,26,623-630.

Cresswell,J.W.(2013)QualitativeInquiry&ResearchDesign:ChoosingAmongFiveApproaches

(3rdedition).ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Crotty,M.(1998)TheFoundationsofSocialResearch:MeaningandPerspectiveintheResearch

Process.London,UK:SagePublications.

Daly,K.(2000)RestorativeJusticeinDiverseandUnequalSocieties.LawinContext,17(1),167-

190.


188

Daly,K.(2002)RestorativeJustice:TheRealStory,Punishment&Society,4(1),55-79.

DeMesmaecker,V.(2013)Victim-OffenderMediationParticipants’OpinionsontheRestorative

JusticeValuesofConfidentiality,ImpartialityandVoluntariness.RestorativeJustice:An

InternationalJournal,1(3)p334-361.

Dhami,M.K.,Mantle,G.&Fox,D.(2009)RestorativeJusticeinPrisons.ContemporaryJustice

Review,Vol.12(4)p438-448.

Dick,B.(1993)ActionResearchThesis.Availableathttp://www.aral.com.au/DLitt/DLitt_

P50arth.pdf.Accessed9thAugust2014.

Dignan,J.(2000)RestorativeJusticeOptionsforNorthernIreland:AComparativeView.UK:

HomeOfficeResearchReport10.

Dignan,J.(2005)UnderstandingVictimsandRestorativeJustice.Maidenhead:OpenUniversity

Press.

Doolin,K.(2007)‘ButWhatDoesitMean?SeekingDefinitionalClarityinRestorativeJustice’.

JournalofCriminalLaw,71.

Drake,D.H.(2014)ResearchingPrisonerExperienceswithPrisonOfficers:AnActionResearch-

inspiredApproach.ActionResearch,Vol.12(1),94-109.

DrydenW.,&NeenanM.(2003)EssentialRationalEmotiveBehaviourTherapy.Wiley.

Dudley,J.R.(2005)ResearchMethodsforSocialWork:BecomingConsumers&Producersof

Research.Boston,US:PearsonEducation,Inc.

Ellis,A.(2003).Earlytheoriesandpracticesofrationalemotivebehaviortheoryandhowthey

havebeenaugmentedandrevisedduringthelastthreedecades.JournalofRational-Emotive&

Cognitive-BehaviorTherapy,21(3/4).

Ellis,M.(2011)VictimAwarenessProgram.ADescriptiveStudy.Ohio,USA:OfficeofCriminal

JusticeServices.

Erbe,C.(2004)inZehr,H.&Toews,B.(ed)CriticalIssuesinRestorativeJustice.NewYork:

CriminalJusticePress&Devon,UK:WillanPublishing;pp.289-298.


189

Feasey,S.&Williams,P.(2009)AnEvaluationoftheSycamoreTreeProgramme:Basedonan

AnalysisofCRIMEPICSIIData.SheffieldHallamUniversity:HallamCentreforCommunity

Justice.

Fergusson,G.(2015)SpeechfromtheThrone.OntheOccasionoftheConveningofthe

Legislature:RestoringConfidenceandOpportunity.Availableathttp://subportal.gov.bm/

books/thSpeech15/files/assets/basic-html/index.html#1.Accessed12thDecember2015.

Frude,N.,Honess,T.&Maguire,M.(2013)CRIMEPICSIIManual.UK:M&AResearch.

Gergen,K.J.(2009)Aninvitationtosocialconstruction(2ndEdition).London,UK:SagePublicationsLtd.

Godden,N.M.(2013)SeekingJusticeforVictim-Survivors:UnconventionalLegalResponsesto

Rape,DurhamThesis:DurhamUniversity.AvailableatDurhamE-ThesisOnline:

http://ethesis.dur.ac.uk/6379/Accessed23rdMarch2013.

Graef,R.(2001)WhyRestorativeJustice?Repairingtheharmcausedbycrime.London:Calouste

GulbenkianFoundation.

Greene,J.C.,Caracelli,V.J.&Graham,W.F.(1989)TowardaConceptualFrameworkforMixed-

MethodEvaluationDesigns.EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis,Vol.11(3),p255-274.

Greene,M.J.(2014)OntheInsideLookingIn:MethodologicalInsightsandChallengesin

ConductingQualitativeInsiderResearch.TheQualitativeReport,Vol.19p1-13.

Gromet,D.M.&Darley,J.M.(2006)RestorationandRetribution:HowIncludingRetributive

ComponentsAffectstheAcceptabilityofRestorativeJusticeProcedures.SocialJusticeResearch,

Vol.19(4),p395-432.

Hagemann,O.(2003)RestorativeJusticeinPrison?InWalgrave,L.(ed)Repositioning

RestorativeJustice.Devon,UK:WillanPublishing;pp221-236.

Harris,E.(2014)CasematesBarracksGoesNational.Availableathttp://www.royalgazette.com

/article/20140531/ISLAND/140539957.Accessed20thDecember2015.

Horton,R.,Foggo,L.F.,Barritt,J.,Dunkley,M.H.,Dillas-Wright,J.E.,DeVent,A.E.&Pettingill,

M.J.(2011)ExecutiveSummaryJointSelectCommitteeonthecausesofviolentcrimeandgun


190

violenceinBermuda.Availableathttp://www.parliament.bm/uploadedFiles/Content/Home/

Report%20on%20Violent%20Crime%20and%20Gun%20Violence%20in%20Bermuda.pdf.

Accessed29thNovember2015.

InternationalCentreforPrisonStudies(2014)HighesttoLowest-PrisonPopulationTotal.

Availableathttp://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to-lowest/prison-population-

total?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All&=Apply.Accessedon31stOct2014.

Johnstone,G.(2002)RestorativeJustice:Ideas,Values,Debates.Devon:WillianPublishing.

Jolliffe,D.&Farrington,D.P.(2007)ASystematicReviewoftheNationalandInternational

EvidenceontheEffectivenessofInterventionswithViolentOffenders.MinistryofJustice

ResearchSeries16/07.

Jones,R.(2004)BermudaFiveCenturies.Bermuda:PanatelVDSLtd.

Jones,S.(2014)‘We’reNotMonsters’.Bermuda:BDASunnewspaper.

Jones,S.(2015)PrisonNumbersContinuetoFall.Availableathttp://www.royalgazette.com/

article/20150130/NEWS/150139970.Accessed2ndFebruary2015.

Kawaley,I.(2014)ChiefJusticeofBermudaIanKawaley’sOpeningSpeechof2015.Availableat

http://bernews.com/2015/01/photos-speeches-opening-of-2015-legal-year/.Accessed22nd

November2015.

Kinyanjui,S.M.(2008)AGenealogicalAnalysisoftheCriminalJusticeSysteminKenya:Rebirth

ofRestorativeJusticeforJuveniles?Availableat

https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/4495/1/2008kinyanjuismphdinlaw.pdf.Accessed23rd

March2013.

Knight,S.(2013)Recidivism:AnIn-depthInvestigationintotheEffectsofSocialandGeographic

LimitationsonViolentGangOffendersinBermuda.UnpublishedMScThesisPaper.

Kvale,S.(1996)Interviews:AnIntroductiontoQualitativeResearchInterviewing,California.

Availableathttp://www.inside-installations.org/OCMT/mydocs/Microsoft%20Word%20-

%20Booksummary_Interviews_SMAK_2.pdf.Accessed15thJuly2014.


191

Latimer,J.,Dowden,C.&Muise,D.(2001)TheEffectivenessofRestorativeJusticePractices:A

Meta-Analysis.DepartmentofJusticeCanada:ResearchandStatisticsDivision.

Lawrence,K.&Codrington,R.(2014)RadicalDynamicsinBermudainthe21stCentury:Progress

andChallenges.Bermuda:TheAspenInstitute.

Lewin,C.(2005)ElementaryQuantitativeMethods,inSomekh,B.&Lewin,C.(eds)Research

MethodsintheSocialSciences,London:Sage,pp.215-225.

Lofland,J.&Lofland,L.H.(1995)AnalyzingSocialSettings:AGuidetoQualitativeObservation

andAnalysis.California:WadsworthPublishingCompany.

Lofton,B.P.(2004)DoesRestorativeJusticeChallengeSystemicInjustices?InZehr,H.&Toews,

B.(eds)CriticalIssuesinRestorativeJustice.NewYork:CriminalJusticePress&Devon,UK:

WillanPublishing,pp.377-385.

Mackenzie,N.&Knipe,S.(2006)Researchdilemmas:Paradigms,methodsandmethodology.

IssuesinEducationalResearch,Vol.16(2),p193-205.

Marshall,T.F.(1998)RestorativeJustice:AnOverview,inJohnstone,G.(ed.2003)ARestorative

justiceReader:Texts,Sources,Context,Devon:WillianPublishing,pp.28-46.

Maruna,S.&McNeil,F.(2008)GivingUpandGivingBack:Desistance,GenerativityandSocial

WorkwithOffenders,inMcIvor,G.&Raynor,P.(eds)DevelopmentsinSocialWorkwith

Offenders.London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers,pp.541-583.

Maybury,A.(2008)AlternativestoIncarcerationInitiativeABetterBermuda.Availableat

http://www.cicad.oas.org/reduccion_demanda/eulac/forum_exchanges/santodomingo/files/D

OC_33ALFRED_MAYBURY.pdf.Accessed28thNovember2015.

McCold,P.(2000)TowardaHolisticVisionofRestorativeJuvenileJustice:AReplytothe

MaximalistModel.ContemporaryJusticeReview,3(4),357-414.

McCold,P.(2004)WhatistheRoleofCommunityinRestorativeJusticeTheoryandPractice?in

Zehr,H.&Toews,B.(eds)CriticalIssuesinRestorativeJustice.NewYork:CriminalJusticePress

&Devon,UK:WillanPublishing,pp.155-172.


192

McNiff,J.&Whitehead,J.(2011)AllYouNeedtoKnowAboutActionResearch.London,UK:

SagePublicationsLtd.

Menkel-Meadow,C.(2007)RestorativeJustice:WhatisitandDoesitWork?Availableat

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/583.Accessed2ndJanuary2015.

Miers,D.,Maguire,M.,Goldie,S.,Sharpe,K.,Hale,C.,Netten,A.,Uglow,S.,Doolin,K.,Hallum,

A.,Enterkin,J.&Newburn,T.(2001)AnExploratoryEvaluationofRestorativeJusticeSchemes.

UKHomeOffice:CrimeReductionResearchSeries,Paper9.

Miller,L.(2008)CounselingCrimeVictims:PracticalStrategiesforMentalHealthProfessionals.

NewYork:SpringerPublishingCompany.

MinistryofJustice(2013)CodeofPracticeforVictimsofCrime.Availableathttps://www.gov.

uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/254459/code-of-practice-

victims-of-crime.pdf?utm_source=Justice&utm_campaign=0e331ea62a-CPD_Victims_Directive_

and_Restorative_&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8a820b373-0e331ea62a-345494173.

Accessed28thJanuary2015.

MinistryofJustice(2013b)JusticeDataLabRe-offendingAnalysis:PrisonFellowship–Sycamore

Treeprogramme.Availableathttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/249235/prison-fellowship-sept-2013.pdf.Accessed11thFebruary2014.

NationalOffenderManagementService(2002)BriefGuideforPractitioners.RestorativeJustice

intheNationalOffenderManagementServiceNOMS.London:NationalOffenderManagement

Service.

NationalOffenderManagementService(2012)Segmentation:NeedsandEvidenceTablesforthe

CommissioningRoundfor2013-14.London:NationalOffenderManagementService.

NationalOffenderManagementService(2013)WaitTilEight:AnEssentialStart-upGuideto

NOMSRJSchemeImplementation.London:NationalOffenderManagementService.

Noll,D.E.(2003)RestorativeJustice:OutliningaNewDirectionforForensicPsychology.Journal

ofForensicPsychologyPractice,Vol.3(1),p5-24.


193

Omale,D.J.O.(2009)RestorativeJusticeasanAlternativeDisputeResolutionModel:Opinions

ofVictimsofCrime,andCriminalJusticeProfessionalsinNigeria.Availableat

https://www.dora.dmu.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/2086/2411/PhD%20Don%20John%20

Otene%20Omale.pdf?sequence=1.Accessed23rdMarch2013.

Opdenakker,R.(2006)AdvantagesandDisadvantagesofFourInterviewTechniquesin

QualitiativeResearch.Availableathttp://www.qualitative-

research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/175/392.Accessed12thApril,2014.

Orth,U.(2004)DoesPerpetratorPunishmentSatisfyVictims’FeelingsofRevenge?Aggressive

Behavior,30,62-70.

Packwood.C.O.(2012)ChainedontheRock.SlaveryinBermuda.Bermuda:NationalMuseum

ofBermudaPress.

Parker,L.&VanNess,D.(2010)SycamoreTreeProjectProgrammeGuide(ThirdEdition).

Washington,DC:PrisonFellowshipInternational.

Pitt,D.,Robinson,W.N.H.,Cooper,R.C.,Pearman,J.I.,Scott,W.A.&Banton,M.(1978)Report

oftheRoyalCommissionintothe1977Disturbances.Accessed28thNovember2015.Availableat

http://decouto.bm/reports/Pitt-report-1978.pdf

Radelet,M.L.&Borg,M.J.(2000)CommentonUmbreitandVos:RetributiveVersusRestorative

Justice.HomicideStudies,Vol4No.1,p88-92.

Reisel,D.(2014)TheNeuroscienceofRestorativeJustice.Availableat

https://www.ted.com/talks/daniel_reisel_the_neuroscience_of_restorative_justice/transcript?l

anguage=en.Accessed14thDecember2015.

RestorativeJusticeCouncil(2011)BestPracticeGuidanceforRestorativePractice.London:

RestorativeJusticeCouncil.

RestorativeJusticeCouncil(2015)IpsosMORIPollSummary.Availableat

http://restorativejustice.org.uk/news/new-polling-demonstrates-overwhelming-support-

restorative-justice.Accessed18thJuly2015.


194

RestorativeJusticeCouncil(2015b)RestorativeJusticeandtheJudiciary.InformationPack.

London:RestorativeJusticeCouncil.

Riley,C.(2013)AProfileofthePrisonPopulation:AStudyofInmatesinBermuda.Unpublished.

Robert,L.&Peters,T.(2003)HowRestorativeJusticeisAbletoTranscendthePrisonWalls:a

Discussionofthe‘RestorativeDetention’ProjectinWeitekamp,E.G.M&Kerner,H.J.(ed)

RestorativeJusticeinContext:InternationalPracticeandDirections.Devon,UK:Willan

Publishing.

Roberts,A.W.(2004)IsRestorativeJusticeTiedtoSpecificModelsofPractice?InZehr,H.&

Toews,B.(eds)CriticalIssuesinRestorativeJustice.NewYork:CriminalJusticePress&Devon,

UK:WillanPublishing.

Shapland,J.(2013)Participants’ChosenWords:aResponseto“WordsonWords’.Restorative

Justice:AnInternationalJournal,Vol.1(1),62-69.

Shapland,J.,Atkinsin,A.,Atkinson,H.,Chapman,B.,Colledge,E.,Dignan,J.,Howes,M.,

Johnstone,J.,Robinson,G.&Sorsby,A.(2006)RestorativeJusticeinPractice-Findingsformthe

SecondPhaseoftheEvaluationofThreeSchemes.London:HomeOfficeFindings274.

Shapland,J.,Atkinsin,A.,Atkinson,H.,Chapman,B.,Dignan,J.,Howes,M.,Johnstone,J.,

Robinson,G.&Sorsby,A.(2007)RestorativeJustice:theViewsofVictimsandOffenders.The

ThirdReportfromtheEvaluationofThreeSchemes.MinistryofJusticeResearchSeries3/07.

Shapland,J.,Atkinson,A.,Colledge,E.,Dignan,J.,Howes,M.,Johnstone,J.,Pennant,R.,

Robinson,G.,&Sorsby,A.(2004)ImplementingRestorativeJusticeSchemes(CrimeReduction

Programme):AreportontheFirstYear.HomeOfficeOnlineReport32/04.

Shearer,A.(2010)AdjustingtheScales:RestorativeJusticeandtheBalanceofPower.

InternationalJournalofJungianStudiesVol.2(1),45-58.

Smith,J.E.(2006)EchoesofBermuda’sPast:FromSlaverytoEmancipationandBeyond.

Bermuda:BermudaPress.


195

Smith,K.(2002)PrisonsNameChangeHeraldsNewMindset.Availableat

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20020326/NEWS/303269990.Accessed24thDecember

2015.

Somekh,B.&Lewin,C.(2005)ResearchMethodsintheSocialSciences,London:Sage.

Stevenson,C.(2014)Exclusive:InsideBermuda’sDrugTreatmentCourt.Availableat


2015.

Strang,H.,Sherman,L.W.,Mayo-Wilson,E.,Woods,D.&Ariel,B.(2013)RestorativeJustice

Conferencing(RJC)UsingFace-to-FaceMeetingsofOffendersandVictims:EffectsonOffender

RecidivismandVictimSatisfaction.ASystematicReview.CampbellCollaborationSystematic

Reviews2013:12.

Strangeways,S.(2011)Murderrateisdoubletheworldaverage.Availableat

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20111121/NEWS03/711219957.Accessed28thNovember

2015.

Sutrop,M.&Florea,C.(2010)GuidanceNoteforResearchersandEvaluatorsofSocialSciences

andHumanitiesResearch.Accessed8th2013.http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants

/data/ref/fp7/89867/social-sciences-humanities_en.pdf.Accessed8thAugust2013.

Suttie,J.(2015)CanRestorativeJusticeHelpPrisonerstoHeal?Availableathttp://greatergood.

berkeley.edu/article/item/restorative_justice_help_prisoners_heal#.Accessedat31stDecember

2015.

Sutton,J.(2011)AnEthnographicAccountofDoingSurveyResearchinPrison:Descriptions,

Reflections,andSuggestionsfromtheField.QualitativeSociologyReviewVol.VII,Issue2,p45-

63.

Szego,D.&Fellegi,B.(2013)TalksBehindtheWalls:RestorativeEncountersinPrisonSettings.

Availableathttp://www.rj4all.info/library/talks-behind-walls-restorative-encounters-prison-

settings.Accessed22ndJanuary2015.


196

Talbot,N.(2002)NewLegislationGivesSexAttackVictimsaVoice.Availableat


2015.

TheRoyalGazette(1993)Prison’sAimistoReformInmates.Availableat

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/19930223/NEWS/302239980Accessed24thDecember

2015.

TheRoyalGazette(1994)NewPrisonAimstoOfferInmates‘PositiveGoals’.Availableat


2015.

Tickell,S.&Akester,K.(2004)RestorativeJustice:TheWayAhead.London:Justice.

Toews,B.(2006)RestorativeJusticeforPeopleinPrison:RebuildingtheWebofRelationships.

Intercourse,PA:GoodBooks.

Tumim,S.,Bassett,M.,Robinson,L.,Wade,N.,Bass,S.,French,T.&Jenkins,D.(1992)Reportof

theCriminalJusticeReviewBoard:ReportontheCriminalJusticeSysteminBermuda.Available

at:http://decouto.bm/reports/Tumin-Report-1992-10-02.pdf.Accessed22ndNovember2015.

Umbreit,M.S.(1998)"RestorativeJusticeThroughVictim-OffenderMediation:AMulti-Site

Assessment."WesternCriminologyReview1(1).[Online].Availableat:http://www.western

criminology.org/documents/WCR/v01n1/Umbreit/umbreit.html.Accessed1stMarch2015

Umbreit,M.S.(2000)RestorativeJusticeConferencing:GuidelinesforVictimSensitivePractice

“AdaptingConferences,Mediations,CirclesandReparativeBoardstoPeople,Communities,and

Cultures”.Availableat:http://www.cehd.umn.edu/ssw/rjp/Resources/RJ_Dialogue_Resources/

Restorative_Group_Conferencing/RJC%20Guidlines%20Victim%20Sensitive%20Practice.pdf.

Accessed22ndFebruary2015

Umbreit,M.S.&Armour,M.P.(2011)RestorativeJusticeDialogue:AnEssentialGuidefor

ResearchandPractice.NewYork:SpringerPublishingCompany.


197

Umbreit,M.S.&Vos,B.(2000)HomicideSurvivorsMeettheOffenderPriortoExecution:

RestorativeJusticeThroughDialogue.HomicideStudies,Vol4No.1,p63-87.

Umbreit,M.S.,Vos,B.,Coates,R.B.&Lightfoot,E.(2005)RestorativeJusticeintheTwenty-First

Century:ASocialMovementFullofOpportunitiesandPitfalls.Availableat

http://www.antoniocasella.eu/restorative/Umbreit_2005.pdf.Accessed23rdDecember2015.

UnitedNationsCommissiononCrimePrevention&CriminalJustice(2002)BasicPrincipleson

theUseofRestorativeJusticeinCriminalMatters.Vienna:UN.Availableathttp://www.unodc.

org/pdf/crime/commissions/IIcomm/5e.pdf.Accessed4thFebruary2014.

UnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime(2006)HandbookonRestorativeJusticeProgrammes.

CriminalJusticeHandbookSeries.NewYork:UnitedNationsPublication.

VanStokkom,B.(2013)Victim’sNeedsandParticipationinJustice:isthereaRolefor

Vengeance?RestorativeJustice:AnInternationalJournalVol.1(2),168-189.

Wachtel,T.,O’Connell,T.&Wachtel,B.(2010)RestorativeJusticeConferencing;RealJustice&

TheConferencingHandbook.Pennsylvania,USA:ThePiper’sPress.

Walmsley,R.(2011)WorldPrisonPopulationlist(ninthedition).InternationalCentreforPrison

Studies.Essex:UK.Availableathttp://www.idcr.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/WPPL-9-

22.pdf.Accessed31stOctober2014.

Ward.T.,Fox,K.J.&Garber,M.(2014)RestorativeJustice,OffenderRehabilitationand

Desistance.RestorativeJustice:AnInternationalJournalVol2(1),24-42.

Warmoth,A.(2000)SocialConstructionistEpistemology.Availableat

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/warmotha/epistemology.html.Accessed30thJanuary2015.

Wilson,C.(2013)DeSilva:Myguncrimefrustration.Availableat

http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20130918/NEWS/130919710.Accessed28thNovember

2015.

Wilson,K.N.(2011)ThroneSpeechInitiatives(Justice).Availableat

http://subportal.gov.bm/dci-documents/item/289-throne-speech-initiatives-justice.Accessed

28thNovember2015.


198

Wilson,M.(2009)InsideOut:HowdoesanIn-prisonVictimAwarenessProgrammeAffect

Recidivism?Availableat

http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/inside_out_how_does_an_inprison

_victim_awareness_programme_affect_recidivism/.Accessed4thApril2015.

Wooding,H.O.B.,Springer,H.W.&Browning,L.P.R(1969)BermudaCivilDisorders1968

ReportofCommission.Availableathttp://decouto.bm/reports/Wooding-report-1969.pdf.

Accessed28thNovember2015

Zaki,J.(2011)What,MeCare?YoungareLessEmpathetic.Availableat

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-me-care/.Accessed3rdJanuary2016.

Zehr,H.(1985)RetributiveJustice,RestorativeJustice,inJohnstone,G.(ed.2003)ARestorative

justiceReader:Texts,Sources,Context.Devon:WillianPublishing,pp.69-82.

Zehr,H.(2002)TheLittleBookofRestorativeJustice.Intercourse,PA:GoodBooks.

Zehr,H.(2005)ChangingLens:ANewFocusforCrimeandJustice(3rded).ScottdalePA:Herald

Press.

Zehr,H.&Toews,B.(2004)CriticalIssuesinRestorativeJustice.NewYork:CriminalJusticePress

&Devon,UK:WillanPublishing.

Documents

Hidden Hurts, Healing from Within: Restorative Justice for ...repository.londonmet.ac.uk/1139/1/AidooDavina... · Criminal Justice System Introduction Discovery & Beginnings History