Universität Hamburg Restorative Justice 01/2009 Universität Hamburg Restorative Justice Seite 5

Universität Hamburg

Restorative Justice 01/2009


Restorative Justice

Seite 5



Restorative =

1. Having the power to restore.

2. To give back something taken away.

3. To bring back to a former condition - as by repairing or rebuilding.

2



Contents

1. Beyond Punishment

2. Origins

3. Principles

4. Practice

5. Problems

6. Evaluation

3




RJ is a philosophy and a method that balances the needs of the victims, the offender, and the community to repair the harm caused by a criminal offense.

RJ• makes offenders acknowledge the impact

of what they have done • gives offenders opportunity to make

reparation• offers victims the opportunity to have their

situation acknowledged and amends made.

4



Questions of the Criminal Justice System

Who did it?

What laws were broken?

How shall we punish the offender?

Questions of Restorative Justice

What is the harm?

What needs to be done to repair the harm?

Who is responsible for the repair? 5




Different Questions

Criminal Justice

• What laws have been broken?

• Who did it?• What do they

deserve?

Restorative Justice

• Who has been hurt?• What are their

needs?• Whose obligations

are these?

6



Warum Datenbanken?


7



Communities

Of Interest

Of Care

Circles

8




Conferencing

Conferencing includes the offender, the victim, the offender’s

supporters and the victim’s supporters, together with a

facilitator, but not normally professionals - NOT the same as

family group conferencing

• The offender will explain how the offence happened• The victim will say the effects of the offence on them, as

will the victim’s supporters and the offender’s supporters• The conference will then turn to what could be done in

the future to improve things

9




Mediation

Direct mediation: just the offender and the

victim with a facilitator

Indirect mediation (shuttle mediation): where

the facilitator passes information between the

offender and victim, but there is no meeting.

10




Aboriginal Justice (Maori, Navajo ...)

Faith Communities (Mennonites …)

Prison Abolition Movement (ICOPA …)

Criminology (Critique of Criminal Justice;

Teubner‘s Trilemma, Search for

Alternatives: Braithwaite …)

11

2. Origins



Prisons Full to Bursting

12

2. Origins



Prisons Activists

13

2. Origins



Warum Datenbanken?

2. Origins

Prison Violence

14



Prison’s ineffectiveness

15

2. Origins

TherapyNothings WorksWarehousingJust Deserts Overcrowding Repeat Offenders Terry MoffittLack of Shame, InsightHardened Criminals Anti-Preventive Process



Warum Datenbanken?

Disregard for Victims

Safety

Healing

Justice

Restitution

16

2. Origins



Warum Datenbanken?

Disregard of Community

Safety

Healing

Justice

Prevention

17

2. Origins



Warum Datenbanken?

Limits of Legal Regulation

Teubner‘s Trilemma

Ineffectiveness

Self-Destruction of Legal System

Destruction of Regulatory Object

18

2. Origins



3. Principles

Respect

Solidarity

Responsibility

Repair harm

Reduce Risk

Build community

19



3. Practice

20

Accountability

Taking direct responsibilityTaking action to make things right Communities and victims actively

determine responseOffender feels obligation to victims

and community Victims and community set

community standards for behavior and consequences



3. Principles

Question: What does justice require?

Who has been hurt?

What are their needs?

Whose obligations are these?

Who has a stake in this situation?

What is the appropriate process to involve

stakeholders in an effort to put things right?

21



Warum Datenbanken?

3. Principles

Retribution and RJ agree:

The offender owes something The victim deserves something As moral agents, offenders must take

responsibility. The outcome must fit the offense.

But:

Retribution: What is deserved is pain Restoration: What is owed is an effort to put

things right.

22



Warum Datenbanken?

3. Principles

Guiding Questions:

Who has been hurt?

What are their needs?

Whose obligations are these?

Who has a stake in this situation?

What is the appropriate process to involve

stakeholders in an effort to put things right?

23



Warum Datenbanken?

3. Principles

Focus on needs rather than deserts

Victim-Orientation: support and healing is a priority

Offenders take responsibility for what they have done

Dialogue to achieve understanding

Attempt to put right the harm done

Offenders look at how to avoid future offending

The community helps to re-integrate both victim and offender

24



3. Principles

25

For Victims:

1. Safety

2. Answers

3. Opportunities to tell their truths

4. Involvement, empowerment

5. Validation and vindication



4. Practice

26

Questions:

1. What is the harm?

2. What needs to be done to repair the harm?

3. Who is responsible to repair the harm?



4. Practice

27

What is the harm?

It is an injury to the victim,

community, even the

offender

Broken relationships



4. Practice

28

What needs to be done to repair the harm?

Identify and clarify the harm that’s been

done

Include the victim

Assess the offender’s capacity to make

reparation

Facilitate opportunities for restoration to take

place



4. Practice

29

Who is responsible for the repair?

The offender, not the state, has primary

and personal responsibility for making

things right with the victim and the

community.

The responsibility is shared by the

agency, the offender, their family, the

community and the victim.



4. Practice

30

Public Safety Increases When…

1. Offenders develop internal controls

2. Community members resolve conflict

3. Community Justice is solution-focused

4. Community Justice partnerships are developed



EncounterEncounter Amends Reintegration Inclusion

Meeting Apology Respect Invitation

Communication

-Narrative

-Understanding

-Emotion

Changed

Behavior

Material

Assistance

Acknowledge

Interests

Agreement Restitution Moral/Spiritual

Direction

Accept

Alternatives

Generosity

31

Values and Components of Restorative Justice



Encounter AmendsAmends Reintegration Inclusion


Communication

-Narrative

-Understanding

-Emotion

Changed

Behavior

Material

Assistance

Acknowledge

Interests


Direction

Accept

Alternatives

Generosity

32




Encounter Amends ReintegrationReintegration Inclusion


Communication

-Narrative

-Understanding

-Emotion

Changed

Behavior

Material

Assistance

Acknowledge

Interests


Direction

Accept

Alternatives

Generosity


33



Encounter Amends Reintegration InclusionInclusion


Communication

-Narrative

-Understanding

-Emotion

Changed

Behavior

Material

Assistance

Acknowledge

Interests


Direction

Accept

Alternatives

Generosity


34



Warum Datenbanken?

4. Practices

Reparation Boards

35

Conferencings

Victim/Offender Mediation

Victim Impact Panels/ClassesCircle

Sentencing

Community Service

Reparation Boards

Family Group Conferencing



4. Practice

36

Value and Method of Circles

• Shared leadership, equality, visual contact among all participants at all times.

• Talking piece: object chosen to designate the person whose turn it is to speak. Passed from person to person clockwise.



4. Practice

37

Circle Guidelines

• No interruptions; speak respectfully, speak honestly. Listen to others speaking. Speak as briefly as possible to make your point. Confidentiality.



5. Problems

38

Role of the State

Safeguards against Misuse

Activating Victims

Activating Community



6. Evaluation

39

Three Aims

• Does RJ reduce reoffending?• Is it worth the money?• Does it respond to needs and

rights of victims?



6. Evaluation

40

• Victims recommend restorative justice to others (70-80%)

• Only 10% offenders and 12% victims expressed any doubt about the outcome agreement

• 6 from 152 offenders (and 6 from 216 victims) were dissatisfied with RJ conferencing



6. Evaluation

41

Restorative justice provides, for victims

and offenders:

• Communication about offender-related

problems

• Mutual recognition

• Problem-solving for the future



6. Evaluation

42

Victims are definitely positive about RJ - they say they and others are helped. Victims of more serious offences were particularly positive.

For RJ conferencing, decreases in reoffending were sufficient to make conferencing value for money against the cost of the scheme. Mediation did not have the same impact.

The current criminal justice system for adults is impoverished in terms of not providing enough opportunities to help offenders to desist (reduce/stop offending).



43



Obrigado

Marian Liebmann, Joanna Shapland, John Braithwaite, Howard Zehr,Louk

Hulsman, Nils Christie e

Connie Musolff

44

Documents

Universität Hamburg Restorative Justice 01/2009 Universität Hamburg Restorative Justice Seite 5