Setting Conditions Whom to Divert Victim Satisfaction

Issue 1 – Effective Conditions Risk Ineffective/backfiring conditions  no effect/increased offending Potential Evidence-based conditions  reduction in reoffending

Issue 1 – Effective Conditions Early Turning Point Findings Missed evidence-based options Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy Combining curfew with non-association Potentially backfiring options Group community payback Short prison visit – Scared Straight

Issue 1 – Effective Conditions Turning Point Solutions Review of what works Making officers aware of evidence base Testing in TPP Officers LOVE it. Extremely empowering – Makes my job a ton of fun! Frustrating/demoralizing Do this every day they know they’ll see the same people back All have theories about what would work, they love to hear how that fits into the larger evidence-base. Telling them something has been shown to work means they’re not shooting in the dark!

Issue 2 – S.M.A.R.T. Conditions Risk Vague, non-measurable, unenforceable  ineffective, loss of victim/public confidence, legal challenges Potential: S.M.A.R.T.  effective, smooth implementation

Early conditions… “Look into anger issues” “Remain of good character” “Attend GP and get a drink awareness group” “Refer to Gamcare website” “Seek alternative accommodations” “Refer to debt advice charity” “Obtain GP’s appointment to get a referral to a drug worker”

Issue 2 – S.M.A.R.T. Conditions Turning Point Solutions

Issue 3 – Dosage Risk Nonflexible OR nonexistent guidelines  criticism of unfairness – non-responsive OR inconsistent Potential Guided discretion  responsive but fair dosage

Issue 3 – Dosage Turning Point Findings Need to adapt to individual circumstances— needs/risk principle Risk to society Need of individual Seriousness of offence Preference of victim Some guidelines helpful

Issue 4 – Enforcement Risk Heavy police burden of enforcement  police resource intensive OR lack of enforcement Potential Offender responsibility for enforcement  low-resource disposals without sacrificing impact

Issue 4 – Enforcement Turning Point Findings Many conditions/offenders: offender responsible for proof “Evidence from job centre of attendance and proof of appt's for interviews in relation to jobs” “To make appointment and attend with evidence of visit to Aquarius” “To attend Midland Heart and get on list for housing (proof)” Need to be aware of hurdles Avoid unfairly punishing those with mental health needs – reduce responsibility Language/literacy barriers Technical violations

Issue 5 – Whom to divert? Risk No (or too many) bounds on discretion  non-flexible OR inconsistent… unfair Potential Bounded/guided discretion  flexible but fair

Need flexibility, but guidance A few inappropriate inclusions (reviewed and charged)… …and exclusions: “Offender showed intent.” “No remorse.” “PIC is a… severe alcoholic and I fear that turning point maybe too late for him.” “PIC has already been given the opportunity to complete restorative justice and refused to co-operate.” “Longstanding ongoing neighbour dispute.”

Turning Point Victim RCT Issue 6 – Making diversion work for victims Risk No special procedure in place for victims victims feel diversion is unfair, lose trust and confidence Potential Systems, training in place to attend to victims’ needs victims satisfied, increased trust and confidence If conditional cautions/community remedy are rolled out without sufficient attention to victims’ needs, substantial problems with victim satisfaction are likely.

Making diversion work for victims Key: careful attention to victims needs, and explanation of motivation Process Outcome Most important factors Care, respect Best interests

Process Interactional justice Information Procedural justice Respect, care, concern, effort Face-to-face Procedural justice Fair process Voices count Attention to restoration Information Updates Contact information Leaflet Complaints process Accurate sentence

Outcomes Rehabilitative vs. punitive outcomes Most important aspect to almost all victims: The offender does not commit the crime again Disagree about best/appropriate approach…

… but effectiveness is an empirical question. Assumption that victims are largely punitive, not so Open to less punitive measures Skeptical effectiveness/enforcement of alternatives Good explanation helps “Just give them a list of good punish about it, because if you don’t give them good punish about it, they think they get away with it. If they had been given a bit of bad record kind of, then they would understand, they would have their own medicine to think ah, I attacked someone, how did that person feel?”

Questions?