References
Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2001). A Comparison of Four Restorative Conferencing Models Juvenile Justice Bulletin.
Bazemore and Umbreit offer a strong introduction to restorative conferencing by exploring four restorative conferencing models for juvenile offenders. The four models compared are victim offender-mediation, community reparative boards, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing. The authors describe the goals and procedures of each model, along with case examples. After outlining the basic procedures of each model, the models were compared by role of the victim, the role of the community, preparation/follow-up, and the outcomes sought. The authors concluded from analyzing the four models that there might not be one best approach, but having a “menu” of conferencing alternatives is needed to respond to diverse cases. In fact, they outlined basic guidelines for implementing conferencing models. This includes collaborating with existing programs, training session facilitators, allowing the victim to have a voice, and in-person preparation of all the parties involved. The authors encourage outcome research on the effectiveness of each model, citing the lack empirical evidence for efficacy. The article concisely introduces key concepts to restorative conferencing making a good place to orient someone to restorative conferencing. (Richardson, Eric [email protected])
Angel, C. M., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Ariel, B., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N., ... & Richmond, T. S. (2014). Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 291-307.
Angel and colleagues examined the impact of face-to-face restorative justice conference (RJC) meetings on victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). They hypothesized that victims who experience face-to-face RJC in addition to formal justice processes through the court will exhibit significantly reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress, compared to participants who go through the criminal justice system without such conferences. The researchers conducted a randomized control trial to test the hypothesis. They randomly assigned the participants to a control group, which was the traditional criminal process, or a treatment group, which was the traditional criminal process plus RJC. PTSS levels were measured with the Impact of Events Scale (IES-R). The results of the trial found a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the control and treatment groups on the IES-R. A medium effect size was found between the overall means. The results also showed a significant difference between groups clinical levels of PTSS. Future, research could replicate these findings with a more diverse sample. Also, this study only looked at short term effects of RJC; future research can look at more long-term effects of RJC. The article provides an example of possible research to empirically support the efforts of restorative justice through conferencing. (Richardson, Eric [email protected])
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702.
Cheon, A., & Regehr, C. (2006). Restorative Justice Models in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence: Reviewing the Evidence. Victims
and Offenders, 1(4), 369-394.
Condon, M. (2010). Bruise of a Different Color: The Possibilities of Restorative Justice for Minority Victims of Domestic Violence.
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 17, 487.
Davis, F. E., Lyubansky, M., & Schiff, M. (2015). Restoring Racial Justice. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.
Davis, Lyubansky, and Schiff make the case for combining Restorative Justice initiatives with current initiatives emphasizing racial justice. The authors cite and endorse the position of Michelle Alexander (“The New Jim Crow”, 2010), which concludes that the mass incarceration rate of the last 30 years disproportionately impacts the African-American community in general and young African-American males in particular. With the well-document disparity - based upon ethnicity and SES - in criminal justice outcomes (arrest rates, convictions, length of sentences) as a starting point, the case is made for “a racially-conscious RJ movement as both an effective alternative to state-imposed punishment and a powerful force for racial justice” (p. 2). In unpacking the idea of RJ as a paradigm shift from a punitive, penal-based system of law enforcement, the basic principles of RJ are offered as a viable alternative. The “school-to-prison pipeline” is also treated in this article along with a list of programs successfully reducing discriminatory, school discipline practices. Of particular note, in the area of research findings directed at school suspensions and expulsions, the American Academy of Pediatricians (2013) is cited as weighing in against the practice of suspension – except as a last resort. There is precedence, then, for professional health organizations to use their expert position in opposing discriminatory practices. The article urges those interested in RJ practices to “explicitly acknowledge race and address racial inequities” (p. 13). (Walker, George [email protected])
Dandurand, Y., & Griffiths, C. T. (2006). Handbook on restorative justice programmes. United Nations Publications.
Gavrielides, T. (2014). Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An alternative and personalized vision of “the other”.
Journal of Black Studies, 45(3), 216-246.
Grauwiler, P., & Mills, L. G. (2004). Moving beyond the criminal justice paradigm: A radical restorative justice approach to intimate
abuse. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31, 49.
Humphrey, J. A., Burford, G., & Huey, M. P. (2007). Reparative versus standard probation: Community justice outcomes. Vermont
Department of Corrections.
Hopkins, C. Q., & Koss, M. P. (2005). Incorporating feminist theory and insights into a restorative justice response to sex offenses.
Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-723.
Johnstone, G. (2013). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Routledge.
Koss, M. P. (2000). Blame, shame, and community: justice responses to violence against women. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1332.
Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE Program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(9), 1623-1660.
The RESTORE program of Arizona is a Restorative Justice (RJ) conferencing program that has been adapted to prosecutor-referred adult misdemeanor and felony sexual assaults. As a rule, programs utilizing RJ philosophies and practices have avoided application to offenses as severe as sexual assault. Koss points out that the application of RJ principles to more extreme offenses has been hindered by a lack of empirical evidence. This article is the first peer-reviewed, quantitative evaluation of adult sexual assault utilizing a RJ conferencing model. Findings centering on program administration, participant satisfaction, and improved psychological outcomes were mixed. While there was virtually no acceptance of public apologies from responsible persons (RP), the consensus among surviving victims (SV) found the process empowering. Racial inequality was cited as distorting the outcome data. Despite the fact that RPs were fairly evenly distributed amongst Caucasian (Non-Hispanic), African-Americans, and Hispanics, more than two thirds (77%) of the referrals to the RESTORE program were Caucasian (Non-Hispanic); a function of prosecutorial “discretion” that has in part accounted for the inordinate number of minorities occupying the nation’s prisons. PTSD symptoms were reported to be significantly reduced among SVs. Of the various participants in the process, SVs claimed the most satisfaction while surrogates for RPs claimed the least. Despite the optimism attached to the findings, it appears that the AZ RESTORE program has been discontinued for lack of funding. (Walker, George [email protected])
Koss, M., & Achilles, M. (2008). Restorative justice responses to sexual assault. National online resource center on violence against
women.
Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct restorative justice approaches to enhance
compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 242-257.
Kurki, L. (1999). Incorporating restorative and community justice into American sentencing and corrections (No. 3). US Dept. of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal,
85(2), 127-144.
Lyubansky, M. (2013). Restorative justice for Trayvon Martin. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(1), 69-72.
O'Hear, M. M. (2009). Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20(2),
09-10.
Pranis, K., Bazemore, G., Umbreit, M., & Lipkin, R. (1998). Guide for implementing the balanced and restorative justice model.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal justice, 7(2), 169-187.
Viewing Restorative Justice (RJ) through a feminist lens, Stubbs has focused on domestic violence and what is termed “under-developed” key issues regarding the application of RJ principles. Questions of victims' safety and the protection of their interests; along with the perception that RJ principles are steeped in appeals to apology and forgiveness form the crux of the argument relegating RJ to the role of adjunct to the current criminal justice system. Stubbs theorizes that the heavy reliance upon discursive interaction in RJ models may be unadvisable for victims of gendered violence facing the danger of continued contact with the perpetrator. The point is made that conceiving of crime as a discrete, time-limited, event occurring between individuals ignores the structural disadvantages supporting patterned crimes against racial minorities, females, and the economically and politically disenfranchised. A strong case is made that the interests of females victimized by a pattern of male violence cannot be separated from institutionalized patriarchal power. While some of the principles, which make RJ a viable alternative to the current justice system seem to be misapplied, there is no denying that Stubbs has presented questions that must be accounted for if RJ is to present a paradigm shift. If objections such as those raised in this article are not confronted, then RJ will exist simply as a novel alternative reserved for minor offenses rather than a system capable of dismantling the above-mentioned institutionalized harms. (Walker, George [email protected])
Van Wormer, K. (2009). Restorative justice as social justice for victims of gendered violence: A standpoint feminist perspective.
Social Work, 54(2), 107-116.
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 253-272.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and human behavior, 32(5), 375-389.
Winslade, J. & Monk, G. (2007). Narrative mediation: Re-authoring conflict stories, ACResolution, 6(2), 12-13.
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: revised and updated. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.
Bazemore and Umbreit offer a strong introduction to restorative conferencing by exploring four restorative conferencing models for juvenile offenders. The four models compared are victim offender-mediation, community reparative boards, family group conferencing, and circle sentencing. The authors describe the goals and procedures of each model, along with case examples. After outlining the basic procedures of each model, the models were compared by role of the victim, the role of the community, preparation/follow-up, and the outcomes sought. The authors concluded from analyzing the four models that there might not be one best approach, but having a “menu” of conferencing alternatives is needed to respond to diverse cases. In fact, they outlined basic guidelines for implementing conferencing models. This includes collaborating with existing programs, training session facilitators, allowing the victim to have a voice, and in-person preparation of all the parties involved. The authors encourage outcome research on the effectiveness of each model, citing the lack empirical evidence for efficacy. The article concisely introduces key concepts to restorative conferencing making a good place to orient someone to restorative conferencing. (Richardson, Eric [email protected])
Angel, C. M., Sherman, L. W., Strang, H., Ariel, B., Bennett, S., Inkpen, N., ... & Richmond, T. S. (2014). Short-term effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 291-307.
Angel and colleagues examined the impact of face-to-face restorative justice conference (RJC) meetings on victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). They hypothesized that victims who experience face-to-face RJC in addition to formal justice processes through the court will exhibit significantly reduced symptoms of post-traumatic stress, compared to participants who go through the criminal justice system without such conferences. The researchers conducted a randomized control trial to test the hypothesis. They randomly assigned the participants to a control group, which was the traditional criminal process, or a treatment group, which was the traditional criminal process plus RJC. PTSS levels were measured with the Impact of Events Scale (IES-R). The results of the trial found a statistically significant difference between the mean scores of the control and treatment groups on the IES-R. A medium effect size was found between the overall means. The results also showed a significant difference between groups clinical levels of PTSS. Future, research could replicate these findings with a more diverse sample. Also, this study only looked at short term effects of RJC; future research can look at more long-term effects of RJC. The article provides an example of possible research to empirically support the efforts of restorative justice through conferencing. (Richardson, Eric [email protected])
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims. American Psychologist, 63(8), 702.
Cheon, A., & Regehr, C. (2006). Restorative Justice Models in Cases of Intimate Partner Violence: Reviewing the Evidence. Victims
and Offenders, 1(4), 369-394.
Condon, M. (2010). Bruise of a Different Color: The Possibilities of Restorative Justice for Minority Victims of Domestic Violence.
Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, 17, 487.
Davis, F. E., Lyubansky, M., & Schiff, M. (2015). Restoring Racial Justice. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource.
Davis, Lyubansky, and Schiff make the case for combining Restorative Justice initiatives with current initiatives emphasizing racial justice. The authors cite and endorse the position of Michelle Alexander (“The New Jim Crow”, 2010), which concludes that the mass incarceration rate of the last 30 years disproportionately impacts the African-American community in general and young African-American males in particular. With the well-document disparity - based upon ethnicity and SES - in criminal justice outcomes (arrest rates, convictions, length of sentences) as a starting point, the case is made for “a racially-conscious RJ movement as both an effective alternative to state-imposed punishment and a powerful force for racial justice” (p. 2). In unpacking the idea of RJ as a paradigm shift from a punitive, penal-based system of law enforcement, the basic principles of RJ are offered as a viable alternative. The “school-to-prison pipeline” is also treated in this article along with a list of programs successfully reducing discriminatory, school discipline practices. Of particular note, in the area of research findings directed at school suspensions and expulsions, the American Academy of Pediatricians (2013) is cited as weighing in against the practice of suspension – except as a last resort. There is precedence, then, for professional health organizations to use their expert position in opposing discriminatory practices. The article urges those interested in RJ practices to “explicitly acknowledge race and address racial inequities” (p. 13). (Walker, George [email protected])
Dandurand, Y., & Griffiths, C. T. (2006). Handbook on restorative justice programmes. United Nations Publications.
Gavrielides, T. (2014). Bringing race relations into the restorative justice debate: An alternative and personalized vision of “the other”.
Journal of Black Studies, 45(3), 216-246.
Grauwiler, P., & Mills, L. G. (2004). Moving beyond the criminal justice paradigm: A radical restorative justice approach to intimate
abuse. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 31, 49.
Humphrey, J. A., Burford, G., & Huey, M. P. (2007). Reparative versus standard probation: Community justice outcomes. Vermont
Department of Corrections.
Hopkins, C. Q., & Koss, M. P. (2005). Incorporating feminist theory and insights into a restorative justice response to sex offenses.
Violence Against Women, 11(5), 693-723.
Johnstone, G. (2013). Restorative justice: Ideas, values, debates. Routledge.
Koss, M. P. (2000). Blame, shame, and community: justice responses to violence against women. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1332.
Koss, M. P. (2014). The RESTORE Program of restorative justice for sex crimes: Vision, process, and outcomes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 29(9), 1623-1660.
The RESTORE program of Arizona is a Restorative Justice (RJ) conferencing program that has been adapted to prosecutor-referred adult misdemeanor and felony sexual assaults. As a rule, programs utilizing RJ philosophies and practices have avoided application to offenses as severe as sexual assault. Koss points out that the application of RJ principles to more extreme offenses has been hindered by a lack of empirical evidence. This article is the first peer-reviewed, quantitative evaluation of adult sexual assault utilizing a RJ conferencing model. Findings centering on program administration, participant satisfaction, and improved psychological outcomes were mixed. While there was virtually no acceptance of public apologies from responsible persons (RP), the consensus among surviving victims (SV) found the process empowering. Racial inequality was cited as distorting the outcome data. Despite the fact that RPs were fairly evenly distributed amongst Caucasian (Non-Hispanic), African-Americans, and Hispanics, more than two thirds (77%) of the referrals to the RESTORE program were Caucasian (Non-Hispanic); a function of prosecutorial “discretion” that has in part accounted for the inordinate number of minorities occupying the nation’s prisons. PTSD symptoms were reported to be significantly reduced among SVs. Of the various participants in the process, SVs claimed the most satisfaction while surrogates for RPs claimed the least. Despite the optimism attached to the findings, it appears that the AZ RESTORE program has been discontinued for lack of funding. (Walker, George [email protected])
Koss, M., & Achilles, M. (2008). Restorative justice responses to sexual assault. National online resource center on violence against
women.
Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus sexual misconduct restorative justice approaches to enhance
compliance with Title IX guidance. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 242-257.
Kurki, L. (1999). Incorporating restorative and community justice into American sentencing and corrections (No. 3). US Dept. of
Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal,
85(2), 127-144.
Lyubansky, M. (2013). Restorative justice for Trayvon Martin. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(1), 69-72.
O'Hear, M. M. (2009). Rethinking drug courts: Restorative justice as a response to racial injustice. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 20(2),
09-10.
Pranis, K., Bazemore, G., Umbreit, M., & Lipkin, R. (1998). Guide for implementing the balanced and restorative justice model.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology and Criminal justice, 7(2), 169-187.
Viewing Restorative Justice (RJ) through a feminist lens, Stubbs has focused on domestic violence and what is termed “under-developed” key issues regarding the application of RJ principles. Questions of victims' safety and the protection of their interests; along with the perception that RJ principles are steeped in appeals to apology and forgiveness form the crux of the argument relegating RJ to the role of adjunct to the current criminal justice system. Stubbs theorizes that the heavy reliance upon discursive interaction in RJ models may be unadvisable for victims of gendered violence facing the danger of continued contact with the perpetrator. The point is made that conceiving of crime as a discrete, time-limited, event occurring between individuals ignores the structural disadvantages supporting patterned crimes against racial minorities, females, and the economically and politically disenfranchised. A strong case is made that the interests of females victimized by a pattern of male violence cannot be separated from institutionalized patriarchal power. While some of the principles, which make RJ a viable alternative to the current justice system seem to be misapplied, there is no denying that Stubbs has presented questions that must be accounted for if RJ is to present a paradigm shift. If objections such as those raised in this article are not confronted, then RJ will exist simply as a novel alternative reserved for minor offenses rather than a system capable of dismantling the above-mentioned institutionalized harms. (Walker, George [email protected])
Van Wormer, K. (2009). Restorative justice as social justice for victims of gendered violence: A standpoint feminist perspective.
Social Work, 54(2), 107-116.
Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 253-272.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and human behavior, 32(5), 375-389.
Winslade, J. & Monk, G. (2007). Narrative mediation: Re-authoring conflict stories, ACResolution, 6(2), 12-13.
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: revised and updated. Skyhorse Publishing, Inc.