Assessing Reoffending in Restorative Justice Conferences
| Author | Hennessey Hayes |
| Published date | 01 April 2005 |
| Date | 01 April 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1375/acri.38.1.77 |
Restorative Justice Conferences
Hennessey Hayes
Griffith University, Australia
Restorative justice conferencing,in response to youthful offending,has
grown in popularity around the world.While there is now substantial
empirical evidence that shows offenders and victims are satisfied with
outcomes and perceive the process as generally fair, available data on
reoffending have produced mixed results. Uncertainty about how confer-
encing affects future offending may result from how reoffending is
analysed. In this paper, I used survival analysis to reanalyse data from the
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania Restorative Policing Experiment and assessed
two methodological approaches: a standard comparative approach to
examine differences in reoffending between offenders in conference and
court and a variation analysis to examine differences in reoffending within
conference and court groups. Comparative analyses showed that violent
offenders referred to conference were less likely to reoffend compared
to violent offenders referred to court. There were no differences in
reoffending for property offenders in conference and in court. Variation
analyses showed that female offenders attending conferences were less
likely to reoffend than male offenders in conferences. There were no
differences in reoffending for males and females in court. These results
suggest that there is value in comparing the effects of traditional and
restorative interventions, as well as assessing how variation within inter-
ventions is related to future offending.
Interest and enthusiasm in restorative justice conferencing flows from the strong
evidence that suggests participants in conference processes (young offenders, their
victims and supporters) have positive experiences. There is a large degree of consis-
tency in research findings from around Australia and overseas that shows partici-
pants are largely satisfied with conference outcomes and feel they are treated fairly
and respectfully (Cant & Downie, 1998; Daly & Hayes, 2001; Daly & Hayes, 2002;
Hayes, 2002; Hayes, Prenzler, & Wortley, 1998; Kurki, 2003; McCold, 1998;
McGarrell et al., 2000; Morris & Maxwell, 2003; Palk, Hayes, & Prenzler, 1998;
Strang et al., 1999; Trimboli, 2000).
Research outcomes in relation to reoffending, however, are mixed. While some
research has shown that restorative justice conferences have the potential to reduce
Address for correspondence: H. Hayes, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Queensland 4111, Australia. E-mail: h.hayes@griffith.edu.au
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
77
VOLUME 38 NUMBER 1 2005 PP. 77–101
HENNESSEY HAYES
future offending (Hayes & Daly, 2003; Hayes & Daly, 2004; Maxwell & Morris,
2001), other research has shown that conferences have either no effect on reoffend-
ing or may increase future offending (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2001; McGarrell
et al., 2000; Sherman, Strang, & Woods, 2000).
In this article I first review the key aims of restorative justice conferencing to
show how these have guided much of the empirical research on conferencing
processes and outcomes. I then review findings from research that has examined
the relationship between conferencing and reoffending to highlight the different
methodological approaches taken, as well as the variation in research outcomes.
Finally, I summarise the results of my reanalysis of the Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Restorative Policing Experiment (BRPE) data (McCold & Wachtel, 1998). The
BRPE compared reoffending among offenders randomly assigned to court or to a
police-run family group conference. In addition to comparing reoffending
between court and conference offenders, I reanalyse these data to examine varia-
tion in reoffending within court and conference groups.
Key Aims of Restorative Justice Conferences
In Australia, when young offenders are arrested for a crime and admit to the
offence, they may be referred to a conference. A conference brings young offenders
together with their victims and supporters (e.g., parents, legal guardians or other
supporters) in a facilitated dialogue about the offence, its impact and what can be
done to repair the harm caused by crime (Daly & Hayes, 2002). There are several
important aims that restorative justice conferences should achieve.
Meeting the Needs of Victims
A key aim of restorative justice is to develop a response to crime that adequately
meets the needs of victims. Restorative justice grew (in part) out of dissatisfaction
with the way in which conventional responses to crime treated victims. The usual
role that victims play in the conventional adversarial process is often very passive.
They may have little or no input into case processing or may only play a peripheral
role in the adjudication of offenders. However, victims of crime want a more
substantial role (Strang, 2002). Restorative justice aims to bring victims back into
the criminal justice process. In restorative justice conferences, victims are given the
opportunity to confront their offenders in a safe and secure environment, to
describe how crime has affected them, and to suggest ways that offenders can repair
the damage they have caused.
Holding Offenders Accountable
Another important aim of restorative justice conferencing is to hold offenders
accountable for their behaviour. This is achieved by asking offenders to describe
their crimes, to give reasons for their behaviour and to listen as their victims
describe how the offence has affected them. In the youth court, young offenders
necessarily adopt a passive role, as solicitors usually speak on their behalf and
victims usually are not present. Accountability is a particularly important
feature of the conference process. Advocates claim that when offenders are
78
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
ASSESSING REOFFENDING IN RESTORATIVE JUSTICE CONFERENCES
placed in front of their victims, it becomes difficult for them to offer excuses for
their behaviour and minimise or deny the harm they have caused (Braithwaite,
2002; Marshall, 1999). Also, the theory of restorative justice suggests that when
offenders and victims come together to discuss crime and its impact, such
encounters are likely to induce remorse in offenders (Presser, 2003).
Reparation
Restorative justice conferences also aim to repair the harm caused by crime by
allowing offenders, victims and supporters to negotiate agreements or outcomes
(i.e., how the young person will make up for the offence). Common conference
agreements, such as an apology or community work, are unlikely to negate the
effects of crime. However, when victims and offenders come together to discuss and
negotiate agreements, they may move closer to reparation.
Restoration
A final key aim of restorative justice conferences is restoration. Conferences may
work to restore the damage caused by crime by giving offenders an opportunity to
repair harms and allowing victims and supporters to participate in the criminal
justice process by describing the effects of crime and negotiating outcomes. Also,
when offenders engage in constructive dialogue about their behaviour with victims
and supporters, they may restore self-esteem and self-worth and move closer to
reintegration with the community they have wronged (Braithwaite, 1989; Marshall,
1999).1
Crime Prevention
Preventing future offending has never been a key aim of restorative justice
(Johnstone, 2002; McCold & Wachtel 1998), so why study reoffending? Advocates
claim that if restorative justice conferences can achieve its key aims of accountabil-
ity, reparation, restoration, and attending to victim needs, then young offenders will
be less likely to reoffend (Braithwaite, 2002; von Hirsch, Ashworth, & Shearing,
2003). It is important to test these claims and to learn if and how restorative justice
conferences affect future offending behaviour. Some have suggested that restorative
justice initiatives should not be graded on their ability to effect reductions in recidi-
vism because there are other, more salient benefits for offenders and victims (e.g.,
restoring victims’ sense of loss and giving offenders a chance to make amends;
Miers, 2001; Morris, 2002). Nevertheless, in a policy context, it is important to
know if restorative justice conferences can effect change in reoffending behaviour,
as well as to understand how the process of restorative justice conferencing is linked
to recidivism.
The empirical research on restorative justice has been driven largely by these
key aims. Researchers commonly ask: ‘Are offenders held accountable in restorative
justice processes?’, ‘Do victims and offenders feel restored?’, ‘Are they treated fairly?’
and ‘Are they satisfied with outcomes?’. Most often, researchers have tried to find
the answers to these questions through structured interviews (e.g., surveys) with
offenders and victims that include items (or questions) that capture various process
features such as procedural fairness and restorativeness (Daly et al., 1998; Hayes,
THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY
79
HENNESSEY HAYES
Prenzler, & Wortley, 1998; McCold, 1998; Palk, Hayes, & Prenzler, 1998; Sherman
et al., 1998; Strang et al., 1999; Trimboli, 2000) and some researchers have
conducted systematic observations of conference processes to gauge the extent to
which desired conference features can be identified (Daly et al., 1998; Sherman et
al., 1998; Strang et al., 1999).
Ways of Assessing Reoffending in
Restorative Justice Conferences
Research on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial