Restorative justice informed criminal justice social work and probation services
| DOI | 10.1177/0264550519880595 |
| Published date | 01 December 2019 |
| Date | 01 December 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
The Journal of Community and Criminal Justice
Probation Journal
Restorative justice
2019, Vol. 66(4) 398–415
ª The Author(s) 2019
informed criminal
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0264550519880595
justice social work
journals.sagepub.com/home/prb
and probation services
Steve Kirkwood
and Rania Hamad
The University of Edinburgh, UK
Abstract
Despite the growth of restorative justice (RJ) research, theory and practice, little work
has explored its implications for criminal justice social work (CJSW) and probation
services. Our analysis demonstrates that an RJ ‘lens’ transforms the view of CJSW,
enlarging the scope to help people make amends for harm, magnifying the role for
victims of crime, refocusing on the meaningfulness of reparative acts and clarifying the
role of communities in reintegration. Our vision of RJ informed CJSW and probation
services offers a way of shifting practice to help people repair harm, make good and
move on with their lives.
Keywords
community justice, desistance, probation, rehabilitation, restorative justice/repara-
tions, social work, victims
A new lens
Zehr (1991) described restorative justice (RJ) as a lens. Looking through this lens,
you see crime as a form of harm to people and relationships. You also see the needs
and obligations that harm creates, such as the need to get answers and the obli-
gation to take responsibility for your actions. From this perspective, the best way of
repairing harm is for people to talk to each other about what happened, about the
Corresponding Author:
Steve Kirkwood, School of Social and Political Science, The University of Edinburgh, Chrystal Macmillan
Building, 15a George Square, Edinburgh EH8 9LD, UK.
Email: s.kirkwood@ed.ac.uk
Kirkwood and Hamad
399
effects it had and about what could be done to set things right. For the person who
caused the harm, this allows them to apologise for their behaviour, make amends
and commit themselves to going straight. For the person who was harmed, they can
tell their story of how they were hurt, learn why it happened, be recognised for their
inherent worth and say what they think the other person should do to make good.
Everyone has an opportunity to be heard, learn and rebuild trust.
In most jurisdictions, this is not the standard response to crime. In Scotland in
2016/2017, almost half of the people convicted in court received a financial
penalty; 14% were imprisoned and 20% received a community sentence (Scottish
Government, 2018a). Even though Scotland (along with England and Wales) has
the highest imprisonment rate in Western Europe (World Prison Brief, 2018), more
people are supervised in the community than locked up in prison. In the age of ‘mass
probation’ (Phelps, 2016), the number of people on community sentences greatly
outnumbers those sentenced to prison in many jurisdictions around the world
(McNeill and Beyens, 2014). It is therefore surprising that, despite the mounting
evidence for the effectiveness of RJ (e.g. Strang et al., 2013), few people have
considered what the RJ perspective reveals about the nature and possibilities for
criminal justice social work (CJSW) and probation services.1 We invite you to view
CJSW through the RJ lens and examine how it unveils, magnifies or distorts aspects
of existing practice.
The RJ perspective sees crime in a different light. From this viewpoint, the nature
of crime is different, with corresponding principles, processes and intended out-
comes for responding to crime. Rather than treating crime as a breach of rules
against the state, crime is seen as a form of harm inflicted on one person by another,
damaging relationships between them and communities (Zehr, 1991). For RJ,
responses to crime ought to focus on mending these relationships. Participation
should be voluntary, as this empowers people to take responsibility for their actions
and make choices about their future. The process should focus on dialogue, efforts
to come to a mutual agreement and include symbolic and practical steps to address
the harm. The intended outcomes are to bring back moral responsibility to the
person who committed the harm, restore a sense of control and dignity to the person
who was harmed and reassert trusting relationships with the community (Morris,
2002).
However, definitions of RJ are contested (Wood and Suzuki, 2016). ‘Purist’
definitions of RJ describe it primarily as a process, focusing on dialogue between
those affected by crime (e.g. McCold, 2000) whereas ‘maximalist’ definitions are
broader, encompassing a range of processes aimed at achieving restorative out-
comes (Walgrave, 2000). Here, we take Zehr’s (1991) view of RJ as a perspective
on crime and justice, to revision CJSW, while paying special attention to RJ as a
‘justice mechanism’ involving dialogue between those responsible for and harmed
by crime (Daly, 2016). Our argument is that viewing CJSW from the perspective of
RJ supports the development of RJ practices and processes (especially dialogue
among those affected by crime) and the realignment of CJSW as a system to better
achieve restorative outcomes.
400
Probation Journal 66(4)
Ward and Moreton (2008) suggest that the concept of ‘moral repair’ helps
conceptualise the role of responding to offending behaviour. Walker (2006: 6)
defined moral repair as ‘the process of moving from the situation of loss and
damage to a situation where some degree of stability in moral relations is regained’.
She said ‘[r]estorative justice exemplifies moral repair’ (p. 229) as it addresses
needs and obligations to repair harm, rebuilds trust and instils hope for positive
future relations. For Ward and Moreton, moral repair provides a normative
framework for addressing both the harm caused and harm suffered by the person
subject to supervision. However, moral repair is not a private matter. For the person
responsible for the harm, addressing their moral obligations is a way of bringing
them back in line with the smooth functioning of society (London, 2003). For the
person harmed, receiving an apology and efforts to make amends allows them to
have greater trust in the world they live in and confidence to live in it. As explained
by Walker, when someone experiences criminal harm, it not only damages their
trust in the person who committed the harm but may reduce their trust in society more
generally, such as the expectation that their home is safe from intruders or that they
can walk freely without fear of attack. Therefore, there is a community dimension to
the effects of criminal harm and a community interest in responding to it.
McCold (2000) provided a model of RJ that includes these three constituents:
people responsible for harm, people harmed by crime and communities affected by
crime. He suggested that an intervention could only be considered ‘fully restorative’
if it engages all constituents; interventions are ‘mostly restorative’ if they include two
constituents and ‘partly restorative’ if they include one constituent. Interventions that
do not include restorative principles are not restorative or may be ‘pseudo
restorative’ if they lay claim to restorative principles but do not enact them (e.g. lay
panels that enforce compulsory punishments). We will use McCold’s framework
with an RJ lens to examine the way CJSW services engage with these different
constituents.
Criminal Justice Social Work in Scotland
We focus on Scotland, a particular case with parallels in other jurisdictions inter-
nationally. The consideration of Scotland is particularly pertinent, given the recent
commitment by the Scottish Government (2018b: 105) to make ‘restorative justice
services widely available across Scotland by 2023’. The Scottish Government’s
(2019: 4) action plan on RJ is intended to develop RJ approaches where ‘the needs
of persons harmed and their voices are central, and supports a reduction in harmful
behaviour across our communities’ (Scottish Government, 2019: 4) and ‘Establish
the most effective model for restorative justice in Scotland’ (Scottish Government,
2019: 10). Our article is intended as a constructive contribution to these develop-
ments and a reflection on their possible implications.
CJSW in Scotland encompasses the services provided through local authorities
by qualified social workers to people subject to the criminal justice system (Kirk-
wood, 2018a). The main intended outcomes of CJSW are ‘Community safety and
public protection’, ‘The reduction of re-offending’ and ‘Social inclusion to support
Kirkwood and Hamad
401
desistance from offending’ (Scottish Government, 2010b: 15). The services
supervise people on community sentences and those subject to supervision follow-
ing a period of imprisonment, as well as providing diversion from prosecution
services, bail supervision, voluntary throughcare services to support those leaving
prison, group work programmes and reports to the courts to help inform sentencing.
The main community sentences in Scotland are ‘Community Payback Orders’,
which have a supervision requirement and/or a requirement for the individual to
undertake an amount of unpaid work, and may have other additional requirements
relating to, for instance, drug treatment, alcohol treatment, mental health treatment
or conduct (Scottish Government, 2010a). The services work in partnership with
other statutory and voluntary agencies in the delivery of community justice services,
including the risk management of people convicted of sexual offences or otherwise
deemed to pose a high risk of offending. Although...
To continue reading
Request your trial