10 February 2014 Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang University of Cambridge

Attempted Murder in Australia Canberra, 1997 Teeth Knocked Out Loss of Blood Arrest, admissions Police divert from prosecution Police convene RJ conference Offender agreed Victim had raped assailant’s girl friend

A “Restorative” Conference

RJ Conference,No Prosecution Who Was There? Victim of Assault Offender Friends of Each Priest of both Police Officer What Happened? Victim raped friend Offender revenge Teeth replacement? Compensation asked Refused Priest suggestion Stay away 1,000 metres No arrests for 5 years

Criminal Law Status No charges filed (prosecution) No criminal record (conference noted) No contact with prosecutor No probation, surveillance Minimal followup by police No further crime

What is Face-to-Face Restorative Justice Conference (RJC)? – A process whereby all the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future – A response to crime that emphasises repair of harm (restoration) over infliction of more harm (retribution) – A major event done with advance planning

How can restorative justice be used? As a diversion from prosecution, normal court justice In addition to normal court justice – Pre-sentence – As a sentence (if victims consent, offenders safe) – Post-sentence For juveniles and adults For trivial crime and very serious crime For direct and indirect victims At different points in the justice system

New Law: England-Wales November 2013 Royal Assent, Statutory Authority Adjournment of sentencing for RJC Crime and Courts Act 2013 chap. 22, schedule 16, Part II: “Deferring the passing of sentence to allow for restorative justice.” Home Secretary gave £3 million to PCCs to fund RJ—same month

Grievous Bodily Harm 2002: London Cab Driver Beaten, Robbed

HMP Holloway: Prison for Women A Tale of Two Victims Holloway Women’s Prison, London

Two Histories Natalie Then Age 21 Raped age 19 Raped age 21 Sexual assault age 8 25 prior arrests 4 robberies 1 prison term Carol Then age 56 No prior victimizations No prior crimes Held on to purse Hit on head 70 stitches

One Victim Helped Back to work as a nurse (after 5 months lost) Resumed her normal life

One Victim Not Helped 5-year prison sentence Mother died Released at 2.5 years 47 days later re- arrested Charged, again, with robbery

But these are stories.. ANECDOTE, not evidence

But these are stories.. ANECDOTE, not evidence For evidence we need experiments

But these are stories.. ANECDOTE, not evidence For evidence we need experiments For experiments we need fair comparisons

But these are stories.. ANECDOTE, not evidence For evidence we need experiments For experiments we need fair comparisons Comparisons tell us cost-effectiveness

Cost-Effective Justice 7 UK (English) Experiments SITE RJ COST Total Benefit Total Ratio London 598,848 8,261,028 1:14 Northumbria 275, ,125 1:1.2 Thames Valley 222, ,455 1:2 Total 1,096,722 9,042,608 1:8 * Computed from Shapland et al, All amounts expressed in Pounds Sterling **CJ benefit estimated at an average 22% of total costs of crime

How Do You Calculate Benefit? Compare cost of crime after RJ To cost of crime after not having RJ Identical kinds of cases Not “similar”—IDENTICAL

Canberra: Did RJ Program Cause Crime Drop?

“Post hoc, ergo propter hoc” Logical Fallacy Known since Classical era

You Are Just Saying: After this, therefore because of this

Canberra: Did RJ Program Cause Crime Drop?

Cause lies not in a Trend,but in a COMPARISON or NET difference

Randomized Controlled Trials RCTs: COMPARISON to WHAT ? Identical Conditions without program But no other conditions are truly identical Comparison units may differ in major ways How to make them as similar as possible? eliminate ”plausible rival hypotheses” Large samples, randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

RCT Experiments versus Observations Manipulate one thing at a time Control all other things Compare two different manipulations Repeat comparisons again and again

“Evidence-Based” Practice Originally described new rigour in medicine Limited to RCT evidence Not just “observed” correlations--coincidences (1950s divorce rates rose as imports of apples rose—strong correlation) But “manipulated” between two identical groups

What sort of RJ has been tested with randomised controlled trials? Face to face RJ conferences (RJC) between crime victim and offender In the presence of a trained facilitator And of their supporters (family and friends) and others affected Offender must have accepted responsibility for offence Direct discussion between victim and offender focused on feelings rather than facts May be either instead of formal justice processes or in addition to them

Testing RJC with Experiments Over ten years, 10 RCTs conducted on RJ in Aust + UK + US –Different offences –Different offenders –Different locations –Different points in the justice system Objective to field-test as broadly as possible Equal probability of assignment: court as usual compared with diversion to RJ (Australia) or court as usual compared with court plus RJ (United Kingdom) Outcomes measures: reoffending and victim satisfaction

10 RCTs Comparing Victim-Present RJCs with Conventional Justice Offender s 1. Australia <30 years violence (diversion) Australia juvenile personal property (diversion) US Indianapolis juvenile property/violence (diversion) UK juvenile property/violence (police Final Warning) UK adult property (Magistrates Courts) UK adult assault (Magistrates Courts) UK robbery (Crown Courts) UK burglary (Crown Courts) UK violence – Probation UK violence – Prison 103 Total offender N = 1882

Free Download: Just Google “Strang Restorative Justice Campbell”

What Does Our Campbell Collaboration Review of These Studies Conclude? Offenders – Slows some down, others stop reoffending completely while others are unaffected May be better for the most prolific offenders On average 27% reduction in repeat convictions across British trials Offence Types Works better for violence than property offences Wasted on minor offences? Victims Unequivocal evidence on greater benefit for most of those willing to meet their offenders

PART I: Effects for Victims BENEFITS: participation information fairness and respect apologies (and sometimes forgiveness) EFFECTS: Fear, Anger, Sympathy for Offender Post-Traumatic Stress measures Desire for Retaliation Satisfaction With Process

Interviews With Victims in 4 Sites After Restorative Conferences Robbery, Assault, Burglary, some other property crimes

Percentage of victims angry before/after meeting. Preliminary UK & Australia

Percentage of victims sympathetic before/after meeting. Preliminary UK & Australia

Percentage of victims afraid before/after RJ meeting. Preliminary UK & Australia

Findings on Victim Post-traumatic Stress London Crown Courts Burglary & Robbery Most meetings in prisons Telephone interviews over several months Standard scale to measure psychological trauma Dr. Caroline Angel, forthcoming article, J Exp. Criminology

Average level of Victim Post Traumatic Stress Both Robbery & Burglary p ≤ 0.010

RJ Helps Women Victims PTSS More

Victim Benefits Compared with conventional justice, RJ provides significantly higher victim satisfaction than court justice significantly higher levels of apology significant greater reduction in desire for revenge significantly greater reduction (approx 40%) in post-traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) for robbery and burglary victims.

PART II: What effect do face-to-face RJ conferences have on re-offending Frequency of reconvictions –across different points of criminal justice process –with personal victims intended to be there? ANSWER: 9 out of 10 tests with personal victims show less crime for RJ than CJ (Australian juvenile property experiment failed for RJ) NB especially results for prison and probation experiments

Personal Victims Present: % Change* in Reconviction Frequency *per person, RJ Group compared with Control Group

What about RJC and violent crime? Frequency of Reconviction In Violent Crime Experiments Youth and Adult Combined All levels of seriousness from simple assault to grievous bodily harm ANSWER: 5 out of 5 violence tests show less crime for RJ

Percent Change* in the Frequency of Reconviction – Violence Experiments *per person, RJ Group compared with Control Group

What about RJC and property crime? What Effect Does RJ have on Frequency of Reconviction on Property Crime Offenders Youth and Adult Combined ANSWER: 3 out 4 tests show less crime for RJ Effects not as big, or as prevalent, as for violence RJ WORKS BETTER FOR MORE SERIOUS CRIME

Percent Change* in the Frequency of Reconviction – Property Experiments *per person, RJ Group compared with Control Group

What about RJC and Youth Crime? What Effect Does Face-to-Face RJ Have on Youth Crime Property and Violent US, UK, Australia? ANSWER: 3 out of 4 tests show less crime for RJ

Percent Change* in the Frequency of Reconviction – Youth Experiments *per person, RJ Group compared with Control Group

What about RJC and adult crime? What Effect Does Face-to-Face RJ Have on Adult Crime Property and Violent US, UK, Australia? Answer: 6 out of 6 tests on adults = less crime after RJCs

Percent Change* in the Frequency of Reconviction – Adult Experiments *per person, RJ Group compared with Control Group

Summary of RJ Effects, compared with conventional justice Violent Crime: Biggest, clearest effects of RJ Property Crime: mixed, not so big RJ appears more effective than court alone post-sentence than pre- sentence RJ better for women victims than men (but good for both) UK: RJ Cost effective for government costs Across all studies: –significantly fewer crimes –Significantly better for victims

Policy Implications for RJCs with Serious Crimes Investment of RJC in more serious crimes (when victims want to do it) Particularly Cost-effective in reducing reoffending after conviction in court and prior to sentencing (English law) Need more tests of RJC at point of prison release (weak statistical power in our research) - but promising here Need a new RCT with serious crime for a new jurisdiction

10 February 2014 THANK YOU Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang University of Cambridge