‘Improving the Transition' Report ignores recent research about Restorative Justice

“Sir Peter Gluckman’s report ignored recent research which concludes that there was a 27% drop in reoffending for those who experience restorative justice, and that the cost-benefit is in the range of eight pounds saved for every pound invested” says Kim Workman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment. “ Instead, it cited earlier research by the same researchers in concluding that restorative justice was of “limited efficacy.”

“The Improving the Transition” report cites the 2007 Report by Drs Heather Strang and Allan Sherman to the Smith Institute which concluded that while the benefits of restorative justice were substantial for victims willing to meet their offenders, the results in respect of reoffending was mixed.”

“However, between 2004 and 2008 four substantial reports were published by the UK Ministry of Justice which built on the earlier study. The same researchers undertook a series of 11 randomised controlled trials between 2001 and 2004 involving restorative justice in addition to normal criminal justice processing, not as diversion. All used the identical model of face-to-face conferencing where admitted offenders, their victims and families and friends of both meet in the presence of a trained facilitator.”

In summary, the more recent evaluation concluded that :

• in keeping with earlier research, victims who were assigned to restorative justice were extraordinarily satisfied with their experience;
• on average there was a 27% drop in reoffending by those who experienced RJ across a wide range of offences from less serious juvenile crime through to adult robbery and serious assault, compared with those who received on the usual criminal justice process.
• The cost-benefit is in the range of eight pounds saved for every pound invested (and running at 14:1 for burglary).

Dr Heather Strang, of Australian National University and Cambridge University, when asked about the ‘Transitions’ report view of restorative justice, commented;

I hope that the authors of the Report will heed this more recent information in respect of restorative justice while of course bearing in mind local conditions when considering implementation in New Zealand.”

“RJ is now one of the most thoroughly tested criminal justice interventions, indeed probably the most thorough. The results in relation to victims are so powerful that no further research would be considered ethical by most researchers. The results for reoffending vary by offence type but tend to be most successful for the more serious end of the offending spectrum. Potential cost savings are substantial.

References:

Shapland, J. et al, Restorative Justice: The Views of Victims and Offenders. The Third Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 3/07.

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J. et al. (2008) Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction? The Fourth Report from the Evaluation of Three Schemes. Ministry of Justice Research Series 10/08. London: Ministry of Justice.

© Scoop Media