Restorative justice without a victim: RISE and the roads not taken
| Author | Phil Edwards |
| Position | Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University |
| Pages | 23-41 |
23
British Journal of Community Justice
©2021 Manchester Metropolitan University
ISSN 1475-0279
Vol. 17(1) 23 – 41
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE WITHOUT A VICTIM: RISE AND
THE ROADS NOT TAKEN
Phil Edwards, Senior Lecturer in Criminology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Contact
details: p.j.edwards@mmu.ac.uk
Abstract
The utility of restorative justice for victimless crimes - specifically, drink driving - was
tested as part of the Canberra Re-Integrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), one of the
earliest systematic trials of restorative justice. The researchers envisaged two mechanisms
whereby restorative justice might lead to reduced reoffending even in the absence of a
victim: a victimless variant of reintegrative shaming, and the mobilisation of the offender’s
friends and f amily to exercise informal coercion over the offender. Reviewing the
literature on the RISE trials, this paper analyses the r easons for the failure of both these
mechanisms to have the desired effect, i dentifies the ways in which restorative justice
would need to change - both as a practice and a philosophy - in order for the two
mechanisms to function as anticipated, and considers the implications for contemporary
restorative practice.
Keywords
reintegrative shaming; community resolution; Uncle Harry; shame
Header text: Author surname on even pages
24
Introduction
Running from 1995 to 1997, the Canberra Re-Integrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) were
one of the earliest systematic trials of restorative justice, comparing its effectiveness with
that of a court hearing across four offence types. Only one of the four trials showed no
measurable positive effect; this was also the only victimless offence (drink driving). While
the researchers believed that victim-offender encounters would have a particularly strong
effect on reoffending, it was hoped that the drink driving conferences would also show
some effect; two alternative c andidate mechanisms which could produce this were
proposed.
This paper reviews publicly available data on the RISE trials (project reports and
unpublished academic work as well as published papers) to assess why neither mechanism
appears to have functioned as its proponents anticipated. This will contribute to a better
understanding of the conditions of success of restorative justice, and the extent to which
it can be used in connection with drink driving and other victimless crimes.
The paper is divided into six sections. The first identifies the anti-criminogenic mechanisms
which the researchers expected to operate in the drink driving conferences: “victimless
shaming” and “informal coercion” (through the mobilisation of the offender’s friends and
family). The second section reviews the evidence of these mechanisms operating and finds
a paradoxical picture, with both mec hanisms apparently present but ineffective; the third
and fourth sections assess the two mechanisms and ask why this was. The fifth section
reviews more recent initiatives pursuing r estorative justice in the absence of a victim and
asks whether they have succeeded where the RISE drink driving conferences failed. The
final section identifies the modifications to restorative justice - both as a practice and in
theory - which would be required in order for the “victimless shaming” and “ informal
coercion” mechanisms to work as anticipated, and considers the implications of these
changes.
Offenders without victims: victimless shaming and Uncle Harry
The Canberra Re-Integrative Shaming E xperiments (RISE) were a set of four randomised
controlled trials of restorative justice, focusing specifically on reintegrative shaming.
Between 1995 and 1997, in Canberra and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), groups of
offenders awaiting trial for four types of offences were referred in equal numbers to court
and to a restorative conference. The four offence types were juvenile violent crime;
juvenile property crime (personal and shoplifting); and the victimless offence of drunk
driving. 900 drink drivers took part in RISE, 450 being referred to a restorative conference;
this was the largest single group of offenders, although in experimental terms the sizes of
the four offender groups were equivalent1. Data collection continued for several years
after the court and conference hearings: the experiment’s key variable was reoffending,
which could only be measured over a period of time after the conference or court
1 The measured reoffending rate in the case of drink driving was low - 8.8% over two years (Sherman
et al., 1998:11); assuming that this was representative, a large sample would be required in order to
detect any treatment effect. (Post-RISE reoffending rates were 10% in years 1-2, 8% in years 3-4
(Tyler et al., 2007:567).)
To continue reading
Request your trial