1

““Emotional Justice beyond Emotional Justice beyond the Courts?: Facilitating the Courts?: Facilitating

participant satisfaction and participant satisfaction and emotional understanding emotional understanding

within English within English Neignborhood Justice Neignborhood Justice

Panels (NJP’s).”Panels (NJP’s).”Dr Max LowensteinDr Max Lowenstein

NJP FUNCTION

• RJ global parties & processes can include:

• “1. Indirect dialogue; • 2. Facilitated dialogue between victims and offenders; • 3. Facilitated dialogue between victims, offenders, supporters and

government officials; • 4. Facilitated dialogue between victims, offenders, supporters,

government officials and • community members; • 5. Directed dialogue between victims, offenders and other parties; • 6. Arbitrated dialogue between victims, offenders and other

parties.” 2

NJP HISTORY

• Introduction in NZ Courts System (juvenile/adults) in 1980s.

• Thames Valley Police (UK) initiatives with victims and offenders in mid-1990s.

• RJC charity established to support, guide, promote RJ solutions in late-1990s.

• Dorset NJP programme starts in 2011.

• Law catching up in 2013/2014!

3

NJP PROCESS

• Local low level crime & anti-social behaviours, voluntary, 18 yrs +.

• Guilt accepted and remorse/harm either acknowledged or unacknowledged.

• Positive consensual resolution between offender and victim (apology or agreement which includes: actions, education – behavioural changes).

• Associated emotions? (Think of 3…)4

NJP PROCESS

• Script to discuss harm impacts includes:

• 1) Incident/offence - What happened, how it made you feel? Offender/victim views?

• 2) Views of Supporters – parents/ guardians, friends etc.

• 3) Views of Offender and Victims mediated to find positive outcomes (ways forward).

• 4) Reintegration and Refreshments

5

METHOD

• Literature Review: • 1) inaccurate mapping of NJP provision

nationally, • 2) limited qualitative data on decision

making processes and participant impacts, esp. long term)

• 3) indication of relevant RP’s to pose • Dorset NJP exit survey 2013/15

(satisfaction/engagement rates are high)6

METHOD

• Qualitative interviews (Kvale) with 8 facilitators to gather perceptions on:

• A) Information gathering

• B) Facilitator/mediator qualities

• C) Remorse (genuine apologies)

• D) Guidance and training needs

7

DATA

• Sample: 8 Facilitators/Mediators, (to come: 8 victims, 8 offenders) 24 max.

• A) Information gathering: (RP’s)• Adequate information on NJP meeting?

(relevant guidance, clear and consistent explanation, effective application)

• Yes (8) with all RP’s spontaneously mentioned

8

DATA

• B) Facilitator/mediator qualities: (RP’s)

• Qualities/competencies for NJP meetings? (participant respect, fair/balanced process, open/clear communication, harm recognition and understanding, effective time/space management)

9

DATA

• C) Remorse (genuine apologies): (no RP’s)

• Impact of apology on participants (verbal/non-verbal)?

• Genuine remorse means?

10

DATA

• D) Guidance and training needs: (RP’s)

• Extent of satisfaction with guidance/training?

• Changes/improvements for future best practice? (comparison to police diversion and court resolution via sentencing)

11

CONCLUSIONS

• 1) NJP toolkit / guidance to aid NJP script and training development.

• 2) Future expansion/integration – ensuring CJS complementarity.

• 3) Comparisons to other developed community resolution models, i.e.) Wanganui, NZ & MS across the EU.

12

13

THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!

QUESTIONS AND YOUR VIEWS.QUESTIONS AND YOUR VIEWS.