The exclusion of serious and organised offenders and their victims from the offer of restorative justice: Should this be so and what happens when the offer is put on the table?
| Author | Nikki D’Souza,Joanna Shapland |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211021703 |
| Published date | 01 February 2023 |
| Date | 01 February 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211021703
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2023, Vol. 23(1) 60 –77
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958211021703
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
The exclusion of serious and
organised offenders and their
victims from the offer of
restorative justice: Should this
be so and what happens when
the offer is put on the table?
Nikki D’Souza
Durham University, UK
Joanna Shapland
The University of Sheffield, UK
Abstract
There is scarce research evidence of restorative justice being used in the context of serious
and organised crime offending. This study sought to explore the feasibility of using restorative
justice by canvassing the views of experts, serious and organised crime offenders and serious
and organised crime victims in England. Offenders and victims were given the opportunity to
engage in a restorative justice initiative and individual cases were pursued accordingly as a series
of case studies. Case studies were limited to large-scale serious and organised fraud. Stark
differences in views were apparent between serious and organised crime experts and restorative
justice experts, the former doubting offenders’ motivations and pointing to their dangerousness
without fully considering victim perspectives. Despite high attrition rates among some offenders
expressing an initial willingness to pursue restorative justice, where both parties wished to
participate, sustained motivation was observed. This study highlights inequities in the way that
police forces have implemented the 2015 Victims Code requirements for restorative justice in
England and Wales, potentially blocking opportunities for closure, social integration and reduced
reoffending.
Corresponding author:
Nikki D’Souza, Durham University, 32 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK.
Email: nikki.d’souza@durham.ac.uk
1021703CRJ0010.1177/17488958211021703Criminology & Criminal JusticeD’Souza and Shapland
research-article2021
Article
D’Souza and Shapland 61
Keywords
Local policing, restorative justice, serious and organised crime, victims, victims code
Introduction
Restorative justice (RJ) interventions have grown in popularity globally, playing an
increasingly larger role in resolving conflict in numerous sectors. Within the criminal
justice sector, RJ has received much attention for low-level offending and its use has
been extended to some serious and complex cases. Yet, there is one area it seems where
RJ has not penetrated – the area of serious and organised crime (SOC). Many SOC
offences do not have identifiable individual victims (such as drug trafficking) but others
do, such as human trafficking with considerable harm suffered by victims. This raises the
question of how the police make assessments about eligibility and suitability for RJ.
This study builds on previous research by D’Souza and L’Hoiry (2019) by undertak-
ing attitudinal surveys with RJ and police SOC experts, SOC offenders and SOC victims.
Offenders and victims were offered the opportunity to pursue RJ if they so wished. As
SOC is a hotly contested term, this will be explored before considering the use of RJ in
various serious and complex contexts to explore the relative successes and the specific
aspects which trouble critics. The methodology will be outlined before presenting the
findings and discussing the implications for local policing, offenders and victims.
Framed as an ‘alternative paradigm of justice’ (O’Mahony and Doak, 2017: 1), a
globally recognised definition for RJ provided by Marshall (1999: 5) was adopted:
Restorative justice is a process whereby parties with a stake in a specific offence collectively
resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future.
RJ is more often used for more minor crime than serious crime. Shewan (2010) found
that over 77% of police forces used RJ across England and Wales, mostly for low-level
crime. Acton (2015) refers to a ‘postcode lottery’ in RJ usage, though RJ is increasingly
deployed in some serious and complex contexts such as domestic violence and hate
crime (Cunneen and Hoyle, 2010), terrorism (Bueno, 2013) and sexual violence
(McGlynn et al., 2012). Within the context of organised criminality, Mannozzi (2013)
describes how, in Southern Italy, the presence of mafia subcultures inhibits the use of
victim offender mediation. Mutual consent to take part is thwarted by the silencing of
victims fearful of reprisals and intimidation into compliance by mafia leaders committed
to retaining power but involved in resolving local conflict, often at the request of police.
In Northern Ireland, Eriksson (2008) found scope for changing deep-seated violent cul-
tures with the catalyst for change being the experience of using RJ values at an individual
level and influencing conflict resolution practices at an organisational level. The role of
former combatants at grassroots level promoted ownership of crime management. In
addition, in post-conflict situations, the South African Truth and Reconciliation
Commission (Jenkins, 2007) and the Gacaca Courts in Rwanda were deemed successful
though controversial (Brehm et al., 2014). However, in such cases, the debate continues
to rage, with cautions against its use due to perceived power imbalances between parties
To continue reading
Request your trial