Stakeholder Attitudes About Restorative Justice: Using Research To Plan Advocacy in The Adult System

Stakeholder Attitudes about Restorative Justice: Using Research to Plan Advocacy in the Adult System Joanne Katz and
Gene Bonham
Abstract This article is based on research of stakeholders in the criminal justice system and their attitudes about restorative justice. Using data gathered over three years, the authors explore the positive and negative views about restorative justice by different stakeholder groups. The article includes ways to use this data to expand the use of restorative justice in the adult system Introduction Restorative justice is a theory which emphasizes the offenders responsibility to repair the harm done to a victim by his criminal behavior. The theory proposes that the best way to achieve restoration is to include the victim, the offender, and the community in a process where the harm and the reparation are discussed and agreed upon. Examples of restorative processes include victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and community accountability boards. By stakeholders, we mean anyone who has a stake in the criminal justice system; traditional stakeholders include the police, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, corrections officers, and probation and parole officers. However, for the purposes of this paper, a broader definition of stakeholder is used to include community groups, policy makers, victim advocates, and educators. These groups too have a real stake in the effectiveness and success of the criminal justice system.
1
The International Journal of Conflict & Reconciliation Fall 2011, Volume 1 Number1
Support for and attitudes toward restorative approaches have been mixed. A number of research studies have examined the attitudes of the general public about their views on traditional criminal justice philosophies. Public opinion has been seen as a social barometer used to measure the publics satisfaction with policies and institutions (Sims & Johnston, 2004). The publics view of their own safety, the role of the courts and the police, and their overall confidence in the criminal justice system can be found in government studies and research articles (see Sherman, 2002 and Roberts, 2001). In Canada, there are annual reports created for the Ministry of the Solicitor General that examine the publics fear of crime and attitudes about the criminal justice system (Roberts, 2001; General Social Survey, 2004). Indeed, there is a wealth of literature about the publics view of police and how community policing is changing the traditional role of police. (Weitzer & Tuch, 2005; Reisig & Parks, 2000). Restorative justice has also been the subject of public opinion surveys to gauge the publics acceptance of its principles. In Vermont, a study was conducted that examined the publics attitudes toward the criminal justice system and the changes involved by incorporating restorative justice. Using focus groups of those involved in restorative justice and telephone surveys of 601 randomly selected participants, the public was asked about their views on the use of restorative justice and other issues related to the criminal justice system (Doble & Green, 2000). Likewise, other researchers have looked at the acceptance by the public of similar changes in the criminal justice system (Roberts & Stalans, 2004) In both cases, the researchers found the publics attitude was generally accepting of different approaches to criminal justice, however the public felt that they were unable to judge the overall effectiveness of these changes.
2
We found no literature, however, describing a study specifically about stakeholder attitudes toward restorative justice models or the criminal justice system philosophies that are practiced in most state justice systems. Therefore, the information gathered in this exploratory study has the impact of increasing the knowledge base about the attitudes of stakeholders about restorative justice and the criminal justice system. This information holds valuable clues when advocating for restorative justice among these important players. While there is a lack of literature that has focused on criminal justice stakeholder attitudes, stakeholders play a huge role in the degree of support and funding for programs and services within the criminal justice system. Some criminal justice stakeholders not only influence funding decisions, but they also are important policy-makers. For example, administrators within the correctional system, victims advocacy groups, court administrators at the state level, all make and shape policy that affects the criminal justice system. Some criminal justice stakeholders are also discretionary rule-enforcers, that is, they have a role to play in the everyday discretionary decisions that permeate the criminal justice system. The police officer uses much discretion in the exercise of daily duties and at times may choose either to enforce a law or give a verbal warning. The judge in a criminal case may either grant probation or impose a term of incarceration. The attitudes of these decision-makers can suggest approaches to gain buy-in to restorative justice. Some stakeholders within the system participate in both short-term and long-term strategic planning. Criminal justice professionals and administrators in all components of
3
the system have planning, development, and research arms within their bureaucracies that plan for the short term as well as develop long term strategies. And, finally, many stakeholders are on the front lines in public safety. They deal directly with victims, offenders, and the community. Such stakeholders include, for example, the police, probation and parole officers, correctional officers, and victim advocates. They understand and see on a daily basis the impact of crime. As a result, learning about their attitudes about any intervention, and learning what they feel needs to be present to make an intervention impactful, is important for restorative justice advocates. The present study This three year study presents results of survey data exploring stakeholder attitudes toward restorative justice in the state of Missouri. The research was sponsored in part by the Missouri Restorative Justice Initiative and the Center for Women in Transition, Inc.1 The goals of this research were to: 1. Measure the extent to which criminal justice stakeholders recognized the term restorative justice; 2. Measure the extent to which criminal justice stakeholders believed that there was a benefit for the use of restorative justice; and 3. Measure the extent to which criminal justice stakeholders were able to acknowledge a preference for restorative over punitive justice philosophies. Using the data gathered for this advocacy study, three specific research questions were identified to be addressed. These research questions are as follow:
1
The Missouri Restorative Justice Initiative was an effort sponsored by the Center for Women in Transition in Missouri that sought to increase awareness, understanding, and support among stakeholders for restorative justice principles, practices, and programs offered to victims, the community, and criminal justice system in the state of Missouri.
4
Research Question 1: What is the level of awareness of criminal justice stakeholders in Missouri about restorative justice? Research Question 2: Do Missouri stakeholders find restorative justice beneficial for the victim, the offender and the community? Research Question 3: Do Missouri stakeholders prefer the use of restorative justice for juvenile offenders over adult offenders? Methodology Stakeholders in criminal justice are generally defined as people who have a stake or interest in how a particular system or program is operated and who have some influence concerning the system or program. This term was used in a broader sense, and the following were surveyed: Law Enforcement: including police departments and sheriffs offices. Corrections: including probation and parole as well as prisons. Courts: including defense attorneys, judges, prosecutors, juvenile officers and private defense lawyers. Community: including community action groups, churches, newspapers, and philanthropic givers. Policy Makers: including Missouri Senators, Missouri Legislators and state of Missouri department heads. Restorative Justice: including active programs. Education: including colleges/universities and public schools (K-12). Victim Advocates: including domestic violence victims advocates. Whenever possible, the highest ranking person was identified for each agency or institution. Because of a small sample in some groups during Year 3 of the project, only
5
six stakeholder groups are utilized for the core of this research. They are: Law Enforcement; Corrections, Courts; Victim Advocates; Education; and Community.
6
Description of the sample This study occurred over a three year period. The sample of stakeholders was developed from lists obtained of the representative institutions within each stakeholder category. Each category was then divided into six different geographical regions in the state. If the sample was small, ie: victim advocates, all members of the group were used. If the sample was larger it was then subdivided into small, medium and larger agencies, based on the number of employees and the community served. Each group was then represented in the sample of that stakeholder group. A random sample was used from within each of the subdivisions of the entire sample. In Year 1, surveys were mailed to a sample of 1,015 identified stakeholders in Missouri. Responses were received from 410 (38% response rate) respondents. In Year 2, 1,047 surveys were sent out, and 309 (30% response rate) were returned. While this response rate is moderately low for a mailed survey and could present some issues related to non-response bias, it is considered acceptable given the primary goal of this study is simply to gain some insight into the attitudes of stakeholders. Certain groups of stakeholders surveyed are also very difficult to gain responses from simply due to the nature of their positions, e.g. legislators who maintain both a personal residence and a residence where they work for a good portion of the year. Another example is the policy makers, such as prison wardens or probation and parole administrators, whose schedules might preclude participation in such surveys. During Year 1 and Year 2, a questionnaire containing 100 items was developed in which respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement, on a scale of 1 to 5, in Likert scale format, about their attitudes toward various aspects of the criminal justice
7
system. A score of 5 indicated Strong Agreement and a score of 1 indicated Strong Disagreement with the statements in the questionnaire. Mean scores were examined to determine the level of agreement of respondents on all questions. Mean scores were considered operationally significant if they were 2.5 and 3.5. The mean scores between these two cutoff values were considered to be neither strongly in favor of nor strongly opposed to the program or philosophy described in the question. While these cutoff values are somewhat arbitrary, it is reasonable to assume that the farther away from the middle value, in either direction, the stronger the respondents agreement or disagreement with the statement in the questionnaire. In Year 3 the methodology was modified. In an effort to gain more detail from respondents than was possible with a written survey, an interview model was adopted. It was hoped that interviewing stakeholders would provide more detail and context from which to interpret results. While the researchers anticipated a smaller number of responses, the detail obtained seemed worth changing the methodology. The total number of completed interviews in Year 3 was 152. These answers were reported as yes and no, recording all additional comments. Year 1 and Year 2 questions in the survey conducted in Year 3 survey were comparable to questions in the earlier survey. . Changing methodology did seem to impact the outcomes. All responses in Year 3 showed much more knowledge about and acceptance of restorative justice than in the previous two years responses in written surveys. Obviously time had passed. However, it appears from the responses of the interviewees that the ability to qualify responses made it easier for a stakeholder to respond to the question. For example, when asked if
8
the person felt that a victim would benefit from restorative justice, the responder could say yes, and then add protections which need to be in place. For all three years, the data were entered into the Statistical Package For Social Sciences (SPSS) and analyzed. Data: Awareness of what restorative justice is: When looking at the different stakeholder groups, the knowledge of the term restorative justice was fairly consistent over the three years. However, by looking at what percentage of each group knew the term, one can see what areas of the society are aware of this approach. Overall about 50% of stakeholder groups understood the term restorative justice. Courts and corrections led the way for all years, followed by victim advocates. Education and law enforcement seemed the least knowledgeable about the term restorative justice. Table 1. Respondent awareness of the term restorative justice, by stakeholder group and year. Year 1 Stakeholder Group All Stakeholder Groups Community Corrections Courts Education Law Enforcement Policy Makers Restorative Justice Victim Advocates % 56.1 52.0 61.8 81.4 37.5 36.6 44.4 40.0 87.2 n 401 24 55 43 102 118 9 5 38 Year 2 % 57.3 58.9 95.3 76.0 51.9 57.9 0 0 57.9 n 297 16 43 46 81 91 0 0 18 Year 3 % 51.3 61.9 93.3 81.8 23.5 38.6 0 100 80 n 152 21 15 11 17 70 2 3 10
Knowledge of the term seems the least important in certain ways. Once explained to respondents (as in the telephone surveys), or when asking a question that involved a restorative justice concept ( i.e., A victim should have input into the decision for 9
restitution), the true understanding and support for restorative justice could be more easily be ascertained. Would restorative justice be beneficial to the victim of a crime? When asked if a victim would benefit from participation in restorative justice, the overall response was positive. In the first two years, approximately 50% of the respondents agreed it would help the victim, and in Year 3 when the survey responders could actually speak about it the issue, there was a 73% agreement. Every group was over 50% in agreement that this was beneficial. In fact, it appears that the All Stakeholders mean score would have been higher if there had not been such a high number of law enforcement interviewed in the third year. The comments made in Year 3 provided the greatest insight into the issues related to victims participation in restorative justice. Table 2. Respondent agreement that victims would benefit from meeting with their offenders in a secure setting, by stakeholder group and year. Stakeholder Group All Stakeholders Education Victim Advocates Groups Law Enforcement Courts Corrections Community Restorative Justice Overview of responses (Year 3): Education: Educators were quick to see the value of this intervention. Educators seemed to relate to the need to heal, get closure and the need for people to come to terms with what has happened. Within a school community, some crimes can create a rupture 10
Year 1 % 47.8 37.5 41.0 48.8 55.8 65.4 60.0 40.0
Year 2 n % n 404 48.0 299 101 51.8 81 39 52.6 18 121 37.3 93 43 48.0 46 55 69.7 43 24 23.5 16 5 No respondents
Year 3 % n 73.0 143 88.2 16 80.0 10 64.3 69 90.9 11 73.3 13 71.4 18 100.0 3
in the environment. This is seen by the comments: Yes, in a secure setting. It would help all parties come to terms with what has happened to them and how their actions directly impacted others; Communicate how it has changed their lives; and finally, Assist in healing process for both people. Victim advocates: While 80% of victim advocates interviewed agreed that this intervention could support victims, many of their comments qualified this answer. Victim advocates felt restorative justice could not be used across the board without regard to the victim and his process. Comments included: Depends on person. Get closure; and Up to the victim. Some may not want to participate; Law enforcement: 64.3% of law enforcement agreed that there could be a benefit for a victim if she participated in restorative justice. The comments from this stakeholder group really ran the gambit, from great support, to a willingness to look at, to finally a total rejection of the concept. There were three central themes in those opposing the use of restorative justice: They are: a) too easy on the offender; b) not good for victims; and, c) bad for law enforcement. However, there were comments that reflected a positive view by some in using restorative justice, such as victims getting answers and closure, and bringing a face to crime. Courts: While respondents affiliated with the courts believed that restorative justice could benefit a victim by a response of yes almost 91% of the time, their answers were highly qualified. This stakeholder groups comments seemed to reflect that the type of crime was an important consideration for whether or not they would support the use of restorative justice. Both domestic violence and child abuse were specifically excluded as fitting for restorative justice.
11
Corrections: Corrections felt that it was positive for a victim to face his offender. There was value seen in the victim getting his questions answered and getting closure. However some responses reflected their belief that the offender would not be open. An example is: No, because most (offenders) have no intent or interest of paying anything back to anyone. Community: The comments related to this stakeholder group showed an understanding of the true benefits of restorative justice. Most responses related to the benefits that the victim would receive in this process, such as getting restitution and questions answered. However, for some, there was lack of belief in the process. In fact, one response shows the extreme, No, no need. Just punishment which should be publicized to create awareness. Stakeholders definitely consider the victims when considering the criminal justice system, and there appears to be a general belief that restorative justice could be helpful for victims. However, an underlying theme was a basic fear that victims would be forced to participate and be re-victimized, and that offenders would not be remorseful. Both of these issues should be dealt with in any advocacy for restorative justice. In addition, the benefits for victims such as closure and healing should be documented and part of advocacy. Would restorative justice be beneficial to offenders? Looking at the responses related to offenders, it does seem that most stakeholders saw the benefits of restorative justice. Perhaps the idea of offenders being held accountable and taking responsibility makes this an attractive alternative. As in the previous question, the numbers were much higher in Year 3, when the stakeholders were
12
able to discuss their answers, and again, we see qualifications placed on the answers by the stakeholders that supported offender participation in restorative justice. Table 3. Respondent agreement that offenders would benefit from being held accountable to their victims and the community, by stakeholder group and year. Stakeholder Group All Stakeholders Education Victim Advocates Groups Law Enforcement Courts Corrections Community Restorative Justice Year 1 Year 2 % n % n 36.9 394 35.6 291 25.9 100 22.2 81 61.6 38 47.3 18 24.4 116 21.3 86 44.2 40 40.0 46 63.7 55 81.4 43 44.0 24 41.2 15 0 5 No respondents Year 3 % n 90.8 151 100.0 17 90.0 10 84.3 69 90.9 11 100.0 15 95.2 21 100.0 3
In Year 1 and Year 2, when stakeholders could not discuss their responses, the level of support was much lower. Education and law enforcement were both again at the lowest end in believing that restorative justice could make a difference for offenders. However, even with the heavily weighted law enforcement in Year 3, 90.8% agreed that the offender could benefit from participating in a restorative justice process. Overview of responses (Year 3): Education: Educators need to find ways to deal with offenders in their school community, and they appeared to really appreciate what restorative justice has to offer. Specifically they saw the benefit to offenders in the following ways: (a) they understand the harm they caused; (b) it could impact re-offense rates; and (c) rehabilitation for the offender. Victim advocate: Victim advocates agreed that there could be a benefit to the offender. In their comments, the primary value they saw was a way for offenders to hear
13
the impact of their actions, secure restitution for victims and mostly that the offender could see the impact of the crime on the victim. Law enforcement: Even law enforcement could see the value of the restorative justice to offenders. While they only saw a benefit to the victims at a rate of 64.3%, when it came to the offender it rose to 84.3%. The comments were varied, but again three themes seemed to run though them. They were: (a) give crime a face; (b) understand the harm to the victim and the community; and (c) affect recidivism. However the last theme again confirms that law enforcement can be a hard sell. Comments about offenders included: 90% dont care about anything. Some play the game, but dont really give a damn. Should be held accountable in a court of law. Courts: The response of courts is similar to most of the other groups. Courts had the same percentage rates for both victims and offenders (90.9%). The benefits for the offender were: (a) understand the harm they caused, and (b) develop empathy for the victim. However, again some court stakeholders expressed their belief that some offenders were too hardened to gain anything from this intervention. Corrections: The stakeholders in the corrections group definitely have more faith in restorative justice being of benefit for offenders than for victims. While 73.3% of respondents felt it was beneficial to victims, 100% expressed a benefit to offenders. Most of the comments that corrections stated were similar to other groups. However corrections, more than other groups, expressed a deeper understanding of offenders. The healing of offenders is stated, and also the need for them to help themselves. Lets the offender heal and hear the impact of their actions. More productive individual, gain self esteem.
14
Community: The Community group of stakeholders was also much more confident that restorative justice could help offenders than victims. 95.2% stated that they believed that offenders could benefit offenders, but only 71.4% recognized the benefit for victims. Again, the benefits were similar to those of other groups. Three basic themes were described: (a) offender can see the impact of his actions; (b) rehabilitation; and (c) ability for the offender to repair the harm he caused to the victim and the community. Overall the stakeholders were much more willing to see the benefit for the offender than other parties. Perhaps an explanation lies in the traditional offenderdriven view of the criminal justice system. In any case, when looking in terms of advocacy, these interests can definitely be further explained and documented. Would restorative justice be beneficial to the community? What do stakeholders think about the place of community in the criminal justice system, and specifically restorative justice? In Year 1 and Year 2 of the study, using the paper survey, the answers showed skepticism. The approval ratings (80.3% average approval) were higher in Year 3, with the interviews, than the previous two years. However, the role of the community in the criminal justice system still seems a somewhat foreign concept to most of the stakeholders.
15
Table 4. Respondent agreement that community could benefit from participation in a restorative justice process, by stakeholder group and year. Stakeholder Group All Stakeholders Education Victim Advocates Groups Law Enforcement Courts Corrections Community Restorative Justice Year 1 % n 38.5 400 30.8 102 46.2 38 31.7 118 48.8 43 47.3 55 52.0 23 40.0 5 Year 2 % n 38.2 298 39.5 81 42.1 18 24.4 92 44.0 46 58.1 43 35.3 16 No respondents Year 3 % n 80.3 148 94.1 16 80.0 10 68.6 67 90.9 11 86.7 15 90.5 21 100.0 3
Education: Overall educators have shown a great support of restorative justice, once they understood the concept. There were comments about the communitys role in three areas worth noting. The first is developing an appreciation that if communities are involved in restorative justice they become more aware of what has occurred than when the offender is removed from the community. The second is a general buy-in that it can make communities safer if it keeps offenders from reoffending. And finally, by including communities, it empowers them to create an environment that works best for everyone. Victim advocates: Victim advocates had mixed responses related to the benefit to the community. Primarily they addressed the issue of making the community more aware of criminal justice issues, and the impact of creating a community that was safer and where people were less fearful. However, again the idea that the community needs to see offenders punished was reflected in some of the comments. Law enforcement: Law enforcement again had a mix of responses, from very supportive to very skeptical. It is fairly easy to separate out the positive responses into three distinct areas. The first is again a belief that this could reduce crime and that would benefit the community. The second showed more of a belief that citizen involvement in 16
the law enforcement system could mean more support for the police. Finally, there seemed to be a sense that if community members knew the offender (Understand who is causing crime. Could be the person next store.), it would be helpful. However, as weve seen again, there was a sentiment that the community needs to see punishment to feel safer, and there were some law enforcement individuals who did not see a benefit in restorative justice. Courts: The court stakeholder group remained consistent with their earlier responses related to benefits accruing to the victim and offender. They saw a benefit 90.1% of the time for victims, offenders and now the community. Their comments are very consistent with others. Many focus on the fact that there could be lower recidivism rates, which could benefit the community. However, there was one comment which showed hesitation of support, It could help, but I am not a fan. Corrections: Corrections stakeholders saw benefit to the community through the use of restorative justice (86.7%), although not to the extent that they saw it as a benefit to the offender (100%). Most of the benefit was seen in the community benefiting from the reparations they would receive. Community would be compensated for damage that was caused by offense and expense. However, healing (Monetary, and building the community helps for healing process) and information (Provides information to the community) were also seen as benefits. Finally, holding the offender accountable was seen as positive for the community and potentially for the offender, (i)f the offender becomes a productive citizen. Community: The community stakeholders were very positive about the potential benefits from the used of restorative justice (90.5%). Their comments fell into three
17
categories when describing the benefit that they would receive. The first was restorative justice could strengthen cooperation between the community and the criminal justice system. The second was allowing the offender to remain in the community if he was held accountable. And finally, this would lead to less fear and less crime. Was there a preference for juvenile over adult offenders in restorative justice? In Year 3 of our study, we did not ask the stakeholders if they had any opinion about the use of restorative justice for juveniles versus adult offenders. However in comments related to whether there were situations where restorative justice might work better than the traditional system, all mentioned that juvenile offenders might benefit from such a process. Educators, of course it is assumed, answered all of their questions in terms of students. However, stakeholder attitudes about juveniles showed no sign of believing that they are in a better position to gain from restorative justice than adults. In Year 1 and Year 2, questions were asked related to stakeholder attitudes on different issues related to juvenile offenders. All were scored on a 5 point Lickert Scale, with 3.5 or 2.5 being significant. When asked if it was easier to rehabilitate a juvenile than an adult offender, the mean score for the group was 3.2, lower than the 3.5 needed to be significant. Likewise, when asked if Boot Camps were an effective means of dealing with nonviolent juvenile offenders, stakeholders from the courts, law enforcement and educators all agreed that it was a good intervention (answers 3.73.8). When asked if the juvenile justice system in Missouri was too punitive, the stakeholders disagreed, meaning that they did not feel the system was too punitive (all in the 2s, below 2.5). Finally when
18
asked if juvenile offenders were more violent today and consequently should be treated as adults, both law enforcement (3.7) and educators (3.5) agreed. When the different stakeholder groups were asked to identify a situation where restorative justice might be preferred to the traditional approach to criminal justice, they all responded that it would be appropriate in the case of minor crimes and juveniles. However, the attitudes ascertained from the previous research shows that there may be little difference between the way most think about juvenile and adult crime. Discussion: Overview: In discussing what can be gained from this data in terms of advocacy, it is helpful to make comparisons. Tables 5 and 6 below compare Year 3 data only. Table 5 compares the data by question, and Table 6 by stakeholder group: Table 5: Comparison of Year 3 data by question.
19
Table 6: Comparison of Year 3 data by stakeholder group
When examining this data from the point of view of advocating for restorative justice, there are several issues which merit examination. Effective advocacy requires understanding the interest of the parties with whom one is attempting to negotiate. An interest differs from a position. For instance, law enforcement might say that the only way for there to be safe streets is if we lock up everyone who breaks the law. The position is Lets lock up everyone. However the interest is Safe Streets. One can argue about the intervention, but we all agree that we want safe streets. Therefore the best approach would be to agree with the premise that safe streets are desired, and then focus on how to accomplish this goal (see Fisher & Ury, 1979). This data provides one with a wealth of information about approaching development of restorative justice. Certain themes run through both positively and negatively.
20
Negative comments about restorative justice: Incarcerating offenders helps citizens feel safe: One idea that runs through these comments, and also is very apparent in most discussions of our criminal justice system, is the need for the public to see offenders punished. In the comments, both law enforcement and victim advocates feel the need to incarcerate offenders to feel safe in their own communities. However, the data bear out that people feel safer when they are more involved in the criminal justice system. In their study, Karp, Bazemore & Chesire (2004) surveyed community volunteers who worked with reparative probation programs in Vermont. When asked if their communities were safer because of the restorative justice program, 75% of those surveyed said yes. Offenders are too hardened to benefit: The other major theme voiced by many of the stakeholder groups is the idea that some people are just too hardened to engage in restorative justice. Certainly people who are mentally ill and/or have serious substance abuse issues are not appropriate targets for restorative justice. Again, this can be easily dealt with in advocacy by educating the stakeholders about who would actually engage in a restorative justice process. Only those who are deemed appropriate, meaning that they are willing and able to participate, would ever be involved. Some crimes are inappropriate for restorative justice: In a similar way, concerns by some stakeholder groups that restorative justice would only be used for certain crimes were stated. The courts actually mentioned that child abuse and domestic violence were not appropriate. Victim advocates also wanted to make certain that victims would not be forced to participate. Again, education about how restorative justice is implemented seems quite important. These concerns are very legitimate, and should be dealt with in
21
that way. By agreeing with the stakeholder, one can actually build common ground to build agreements. Programs can be change: Underlying these ideas is the fear that programs that are started with many ideals in place can become institutionalized, and the safeguards are later abandoned. Could it be that in the future, all victims are ordered to participate in restorative justice? Could all offenders have to meet with their victims to be able to be part of a diversion program? These are scary scenarios, which need to be protected against. As advocates, one must offer ideas, such as watch-dog citizen advisory groups for restorative justice programs, to insure that victim-sensitivity is always a priority. Positive comments about restorative justice: There were several themes that were consistent throughout all of the comments. As a result, there are certain ideas that should attract all groups in advocacy Restitution for victims: The idea of victims getting restitution is an easy sell. It does not require the stakeholders to think beyond the traditional way that justice is meted out in this country. If someone went to court, the judge may order restitution. It was mentioned by most groups when discussing the advantages for victims. The criminal justice system has a strong belief in victims getting compensated for their losses, however the system has not always been very good at actually getting money for victims. In a meta-analysis of eight studies (all of which included a comparison group), participants in restorative justice were significantly more likely to complete restitution agreements than the comparison and/or control group (Latimer, et. al, 2005). Healing for victims: While harder to define than restitution, victims are definitely satisfied with their experience. In Missouri, two different restorative justice programs
22
gave victim participants a satisfaction survey after participating in a victim offender dialogue. In both cases, between 90-100% were either satisfied or very satisfied (Katz, 2000). Most of the stakeholders seemed to have some idea of what victims needed, and how this might be affected in a restorative justice meeting. Ideas such as getting questions answered, giving a face to crime and healing and closure were all indicated by stakeholders as potential benefits for the victims of crime. Lowering recidivism: While administering telephone surveys, the interviewers never mentioned recidivism, and yet many of the stakeholders interviewed recognized that this might be an outcome of restorative justice. There is definitely data that show participation in restorative justice processes tends to lower re-offense rates for offenders who participate (Bradshaw et. al., 2006; Latimer et. al, 2005). This is true for both adults and juveniles. However, there are so many factors that are unique to each program, including the geographic area, the types of crimes that go to restorative justice, and the length of time between crimes, that finding a consistent measure is difficult. Good for offenders: Overall, all stakeholders seemed willing to find restorative justice beneficial for offenders. Because our criminal justice system is offender driven, this is not an uncommon way to think. Offenders are seen as the problem, and are the focus of most interventions. The challenge for advocates is that restorative justice must be victim-sensitive. And yet the value placed on any intervention by most stakeholders is how it impacts offenders. Selling restorative justice only for what it does for offenders is a slippery slope, without a full understanding of its impact on the victim and the community. It takes a shifting of perspective, which can be the most challenging for advocates.
23
Looking for interests of each stakeholder group Each stakeholder group seemed to have had certain interests emerge that were unique to its point of view. In looking at those, in brief, a more complete view can be seen. Educators: Educators deal with a school community. They are keenly aware of the issues for all three of the components of restorative justice when trying to deal with maintaining a strong and supportive environment, especially after an incident has occurred. While educators, as a group, did not show a lot of knowledge about the term restorative justice (Year 2 high was 51%, and Year 3 high was 23.5%), they certainly found many of the concepts supportive of their interests. Remembering that they are dealing with a community that must recover after a crime, the educators were able to articulate how they could be helped by restorative justice. They need to find an intervention where the victim could heal, get closure and move on; where the offender could understand the harm his actions caused and actually change future behavior; and find a way that would allow the victim and the offender to stay in the community. Finally they saw how a community could be empowered by dealing with the victim and offender, rather than falling apart because crime exists. Victim advocates: Victim advocates have the narrowest focus of any of the groups surveyed. It is apparent from their answers that they view restorative justice as positive only if it benefits victims. They felt it would benefit offenders more than victims (80% victims vs. 90% offenders). The true value was for offenders to see the impact of the crime on the victim, and that the victim might have a better chance of getting restitution through restorative justice. However, the primary hesitation for victim
24
advocates was their concern that victims will be re-victimized and be ordered into restorative justice where they will be compelled to meet with their offenders. This is an important factor in advocacy with this group. Finally, victim advocates seemed to believe that the community needed to see the offender punished. As discussed above, this view perhaps is limited by the existing options in the criminal justice system. Law enforcement: Law enforcement is the hardest sell for restorative justice. Traditionally the most conservative end of the criminal justice continuum, law enforcement officers deal with the harshest realities of our society. It is easy to understand why they are hesitant to endorse something, which at first blush, might appear to be easy on offenders. Throughout the three years of the study, law enforcement were the most accessible group to survey, but the least interested in the ideas put forth in restorative justice. In Year 3, only 64% saw a benefit for the victim in the use of restorative justice, and felt primarily that it was too easy for the offender. While 84.3% said that they could see a benefit for offenders, many felt that the offender should be held accountable in court. Finally, they also felt that the community wanted to see offenders punished. Therefore, any advocacy with police or sheriffs must be very mindful of their lack of belief that offenders can change, and that victims can be healed through their renewal with an offender. Courts: The courts seemed to be familiar with restorative justice, and already had some firm ideas of the limitations of its applications. While those answering for the courts saw the benefit for the victim (90.9%), in Year 3, they were quick to add that it should just be used for more minor crimes. They saw a benefit for the offender in understanding the view of the victim; however, there were several comments that some
25
offenders were just too hardened to participate. The court felt that there could be lower recidivism rates when offenders participated in restorative justice. It seems that the courts are very ready to try this alternative. Looking for alternatives to incarceration is becoming an objective of the courts, as prison and jail space are increasingly overcrowded, expensive and do not make us safer. In advocating with court personnel, it would seem that creating programs that initially are for more minor crimes with first time offenders would lay the groundwork for growing a program. Corrections: Surveying corrections in Missouri may tend to skew the results. As can be seen from all three years, in Year 2 and Year 3, over 90% knew what restorative justice was. This is because Missouri has formalized such approaches in statute (MO Statute 217.440), which specifies: The director is authorized to establish a program of restorative justice within the department's correctional centers and to require that offenders offer acts and expressions of sincere remorse for the offense committed and its impact on the victims and the community. Such program requirements may include, but are not limited to, community service work requirements while incarcerated and participation in victim-oriented programs, as well as other restorative activities to be determined by the department. As a result of this statute, many working at the Department of Corrections in Missouri have some familiarity with restorative justice. Every inmate in the Missouri prison system, and more recently with Probation and Parole, must attend an Impact of Crime to Victims class. Therefore corrections people are probably the most educated in this area. As a result, their answers seemed to show insight that the other stakeholder
26
groups lacked. Respondents unanimously felt that offenders would benefit, and some stated that the offender could heal and regain self-esteem through this process. This perspective indicates their insight into offenders. In addition, the idea that offenders and communities could use restorative justice for reintegration also shows the direction of corrections these days, with its focus on reentry. Community: The community groups that answered seemed to follow a lot of what has been already written about. Certainly there was a stated sensitivity to victims needs for restitution and having their questions answered. In addition, the strength of having offenders see the harm they caused, and making reparations is also encompassed within concept of restorative justice. However, the way they viewed its value to community was the strength of their answer, and perhaps the appeal to this group. That cooperation between the offender and the community would result in less fear and less crime was echoed many times throughout the interviews. Preference for the use of restorative justice with juvenile over adult offenders: Our research showed very little difference in attitudes about adults versus juveniles. Other research has shown that when victim satisfaction was studied, comparing victim/offender dialogue with juveniles and those with adult offenders, victims found greater satisfaction with the entire criminal justice system when dealing with juveniles (Umbreit & Bradshaw, 1997). And in Missouri, the growth of restorative justice programs for juvenile offenders has greatly outnumbered adult programs (Katz & Bonham, 2008). However, in our research there was little data that showed stakeholders believing that restorative justice was more acceptable for juvenile offenders than for adult offenders.
27
In the research from Year 3, there were statements that juvenile offenders might be appropriate for restorative justice, but that was said within the context of minor crime. It is clear from the research in Year 1 and Year 2 that the stakeholders do not view juveniles as that different from adults when it comes to criminal activity. Conclusion: In advocating for a change in our adult system, it is helpful to see how restorative justice would be accepted by the stakeholders who must support the system. It is apparent from the research that the major obstacle is that some in the system feel hopeless in dealing with certain offenders. In order to have a belief in restorative justice, there has to be an understanding that all parties to crime -- victim, offender and community -- have to be part of the process. Educating stakeholders about how restorative justice meets their interests and values, as shown in this research, should be a stepping stone in the further development of its use by the criminal justice system.
28
References Bradshaw, W., Roseborough, D. and Umbreit, M. (2006). The effect of victim offender mediation on juvenile offender recidivism: A meta-analysis. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 24(1), 87-98. Doble, J. & Greene, J. (2000). Attitudes towards crime and punishment in Vermont: Public opinion about an experiment with restorative justice. Available at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1.nij/grants/182361.pdf. Fisher, R., Ury, W. and Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in. Penguin Books: New York, NY. General Social Survey (2004). Cycle 18 overview: Personal safety and perception of the criminal justice system 2004. Statistics Canada, Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Ministry of Industry, 2005. Karp, D. R., Bazemore, G., and Chesire, J. D. (2004). The role and attitudes of restorative board members: A case study of volunteers in community justice. Crime & Delinquency, 50(4), 487-515. Katz, J. (2000). Victim-offender mediation in Missouris juvenile courts: Accountability, restitution and transformation. Missouri Department of Public Safety and the Juvenile Justice Advisory Group (September, 2000). Katz, J. and Bonham, G. (2008). Changing a culture: Reflections on eight years of Research on restorative justice in Missouris juvenile courts. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 14(2): 20-38. Latimer, J., Dowden, C., and Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144. Reisig, M. D. and Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17, 607-631. Roberts, J. V. (2001). Fear of crime and attitudes to criminal justice in Canada: A review of recent trends. Report for the Ministry of the Solicitor General Canada. Roberts, J. V. and Stalans, L. J. (2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17, 315-334. Sherman, L. W. (2002). Trust and confidence in criminal justice. NIJ Journal, 248, 2231.
29
Sims, B. and Johnston, E. (2004). Examining public opinion about crime and justice: A statewide study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 270-293. Umbreit, M. and Bradshaw, W. (1997). Victim experience of meeting adults vs. juvenile offenders: A cross-national comparison. Federal Probation 61(4): 33-43. Weitzer, R. and Tuch, S. A. (2005). Determinants of public satisfaction with the police. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 279-297.
30

Stakeholder Attitudes About Restorative Justice: Using Research To Plan Advocacy in The Adult System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stakeholder Attitudes About Restorative Justice: Using Research To Plan Advocacy in The Adult System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Stakeholder Attitudes about Restorative Justice: Using Research to Plan Advocacy in the Adult System Joanne Katz and

Year 1 % 47.8 37.5 41.0 48.8 55.8 65.4 60.0 40.0

Table 6: Comparison of Year 3 data by stakeholder group

You might also like