Restorative Justice – Rebalancing Justice · CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 14 RJ – rebalancing Justice Reasons why Victims choose RJ To tell the offender about the impact of the

CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 1

Restorative Justice rebalancing JusticeRestorative Justice rebalancing Justice

Fourth Annual Criminal Law Conference Fourth Annual Criminal Law Conference Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights

UCC June 2010UCC June 2010

what the what the

National Commission on Restorative National Commission on Restorative JusticeJustice

foundfound

Brian Fitzpatrick Brian Fitzpatrick Commission Director 2007 - 2009Commission Director 2007 - 2009


RJ – rebalancing Justice RJ – rebalancing Justice OutlineOutline

What did the NCRJ find?What did the NCRJ find?Terms of ReferenceTerms of Reference

reviewreview - application of RJ - application of RJ

reviewreview - research based evidence - research based evidence

considerconsider - wider application of RJ - wider application of RJ

What are the implications for What are the implications for victims?victims?


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeApplicationApplication ofof RJRJ

Models of RJModels of RJ Applications in IrelandApplications in Ireland Applications in common law Applications in common law

jurisdictionsjurisdictions Applications in civil law jurisdictionsApplications in civil law jurisdictions


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearchResearch BasedBased EvidenceEvidence FocusFocus

RJ models v other court disposalsRJ models v other court disposals Victim and Offender impactVictim and Offender impact Suitability of offencesSuitability of offences Public interest, cost and diversion Public interest, cost and diversion

from imprisonmentfrom imprisonment


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearchResearch BasedBased EvidenceEvidence – – EvaluationEvaluation

Scale Scale RJ in IrelandRJ in Ireland 538538Garda Diversion restorative events 2007Garda Diversion restorative events 2007 378378Court referred youth conferences p .aCourt referred youth conferences p .a 40 40Adult Pilot Scheme referrals 2007Adult Pilot Scheme referrals 2007 120120

RJ in Norway ( VOM referrals )RJ in Norway ( VOM referrals ) 9,120 9,120

Victim ParticipationVictim ParticipationVictim Offender MediationVictim Offender Mediation 40% to 60%40% to 60%Youth ConferencesYouth Conferences 50% NZ 1993 50% NZ 1993

69% NI69% NI2006200680% Australia 199980% Australia 1999


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence – CostsResearch Based Evidence – Costs

Estimated Cost per case Referred Begun Completed

UK 2008RJ Pilots £248 - £1,458 £887 - £2,333 £3,261 - £4,666

NI 2008 Youth Conferences £1,000 - £1,500

Nenagh 2007Panel €3,500 - €6,400

RJS Tallaght 2007 Panel/VOM

€3,250


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence EffectivenessResearch Based Evidence Effectiveness

NI YCS evaluation 2006NI YCS evaluation 2006 OffenderOffender experiencesexperiences 92% youths felt RJ helped them realise harm done 92% youths felt RJ helped them realise harm done 97% youths accepted responsibility for offence97% youths accepted responsibility for offence 98% youths able to engage fully in discussion at process98% youths able to engage fully in discussion at process 98% youths believed they were listened to98% youths believed they were listened to 93% youths felt conference plan reached was fair93% youths felt conference plan reached was fair

NI YCS evaluation 2008NI YCS evaluation 2008 RecidivismRecidivism 39% RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post RJ39% RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post RJ 73% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post prison73% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post prison 47% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post other disposal47% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post other disposal


RJ– rebalancing justiceRJ– rebalancing justiceNCRJNCRJ – – wider application / which modelwider application / which model

Wider application and targets Wider application and targets - Adults before the courts on criminal charges- Adults before the courts on criminal charges

- Offences for which sentences of up to 3 years - Offences for which sentences of up to 3 years imprisonment could be considered imprisonment could be considered

Most appropriate model Most appropriate model - consultation with victim and offender- consultation with victim and offender

- standards / consistency v flexibility- standards / consistency v flexibility


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeNCRJ – InfrastructureNCRJ – Infrastructure

Statutory ?Statutory ? Court controlCourt control Probation Service ledProbation Service led Community / Voluntary - InvolvementCommunity / Voluntary - Involvement Inter agency coordinationInter agency coordination State / Community / Practitioner – State / Community / Practitioner –

OversightOversight


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeNCRJ ProjectionsNCRJ Projections

Throughput targetsThroughput targets5,000 – 10,000 court referrals p.a. (75% RP, 25% VOM/RC) 5,000 – 10,000 court referrals p.a. (75% RP, 25% VOM/RC) 3,600 – 3,600 – 7,200 RJ outcomes p.a. (80% RP, 50% VOM/RC) 7,200 RJ outcomes p.a. (80% RP, 50% VOM/RC)

Cost of provisionCost of provision furtherfurther analysisanalysis requiredrequired

Impact of provision on custodial sanctionsImpact of provision on custodial sanctionsassume 290 to 580 prison committals diverted to RJassume 290 to 580 prison committals diverted to RJassume 210 to 420 conclude a non custodial outcome assume 210 to 420 conclude a non custodial outcome 210 to 420 diversions = estimated 42 to 85 prison spaces p.a.210 to 420 diversions = estimated 42 to 85 prison spaces p.a. 42 42 to 85 spaces p.a. = €4.1m to €8.3m p.a.to 85 spaces p.a. = €4.1m to €8.3m p.a.


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeImplicationsImplications forfor thethe VictimVictim

Conventional justice offence = breach of lawConventional justice offence = breach of law Restorative justice offence = harm to victimRestorative justice offence = harm to victim

Conventional justice engages legal practitionersConventional justice engages legal practitioners Restorative justice engages parties to the crimeRestorative justice engages parties to the crime


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing Justice Victim needs Victim needs

InformationInformation

-- on the criminal justice processon the criminal justice process-- on restorative justice processon restorative justice process-- on why the offence took place on why the offence took place -- on the final outcome of a caseon the final outcome of a case

CompensationCompensation-- recompenserecompense-- apologyapology

RestorationRestoration-- acknowledgement of harm doneacknowledgement of harm done-- assurance offence won’t recurassurance offence won’t recur-- role in resolving the offencerole in resolving the offence-- reconciliation with offenderreconciliation with offender


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeVictim concernsVictim concerns

Is RJ too soft a response to crime?Is RJ too soft a response to crime? Will the victim be coerced into RJ process?Will the victim be coerced into RJ process? Will meeting the offender expose the Will meeting the offender expose the

victim to further harm?victim to further harm? Can the victim opt out of the process at Can the victim opt out of the process at

any stage?any stage? Will the victim’s views be considered and Will the victim’s views be considered and

given due consideration in the RJ process?given due consideration in the RJ process?


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeReasons why Victims choose RJReasons why Victims choose RJ

To tell the offender about the impact of the offenceTo tell the offender about the impact of the offence To secure answers to questions about the crimeTo secure answers to questions about the crime To help the offender address criminal behaviourTo help the offender address criminal behaviour To seek reparationTo seek reparation To have a say in resolving the caseTo have a say in resolving the case To ensure that the offender’s action plan is an To ensure that the offender’s action plan is an

appropriate response to the offenceappropriate response to the offence To fulfil a sense of duty To fulfil a sense of duty


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence VictimsResearch Based Evidence Victims

NI YCS 2006NI YCS 2006 69% victim participation69% victim participation

81% victims forgive81% victims forgive UK Pilots 2007UK Pilots 2007 70% victim satisfaction70% victim satisfaction NZ FGC 2005NZ FGC 200587% victims felt better87% victims felt better NSW 1999NSW 1999 80% victim participation80% victim participation 89% agree 89% agree

action planaction plan Austria 2002Austria 2002 RJ experience reduced RJ experience reduced harm felt by harm felt by

victimsvictims Norway 2005Norway 2005High victim satisfactionHigh victim satisfaction


RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeConclusionConclusion

Commission definition of RJCommission definition of RJ

Restorative Justice is a victim-sensitive response Restorative Justice is a victim-sensitive response to criminal offending, which, to criminal offending, which,

through engagement with those affected by crime through engagement with those affected by crime aims to make amends for the harm that has aims to make amends for the harm that has been caused to victims and communities and been caused to victims and communities and

which facilitates offender rehabilitation and which facilitates offender rehabilitation and integration into society.integration into society.

Documents

Restorative Justice – Rebalancing Justice · CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 14 RJ – rebalancing Justice Reasons why Victims choose RJ To tell the offender about the impact of the