Life after my PhD Working in the field 11 years later…

My PhD Journey Scholarship: Commonwealth bank $15k tax free per year (11 years ago…) Focus: Interdisciplinary - Sociology and Criminology Subject: Restorative Justice Title: Reintegrative Shaming Through Collective Conscience Building Methodology: Qualitative and “T” shaped

Restorative Justice (RJ) Face-to-face meetings between the offender, their supporters and the victim and their supporters. Purpose: to discuss three important questions 1.What happened? 2.How were people affected? 3.What needs to be done to make things better?

Application of restorative justice to PCA (drink driving) offences Never done before with drink driving –Opportunity to expand field of knowledge –RJ commonly involves victim: corporate or personal –PCA RJ – offence result of failing Random Breath Test

PCA RJ Canberra Community = victim Offender held accountable using three methods: community representative video with stories about loved ones and footage from drink driving accidents educational talk

Research methodology – T shaped Broad and comprehensive focus: –137 hours of participant observation of 100 conferences (84 drink driving cases v 17 juvenile conferences) In-depth and systematic focus: –5 case studies – followed from the point of apprehension to the conclusion of their case –Combination of observation and in-depth interviewing

My conclusions Range of elements to consider if RJ “works” for drink driving: The type of drink driver – gambler, misguided, borderline optimist, ignorant How well the conference is executed by the facilitator = Reintegrative shaming v collective conscience building

Drink driving types Doesn’t know limit Knows limit Knows over limitDoesn’t know over limit Misguided Borderline Optimist The Gambler Ignorant

Execution of conference Format of conference – standard versus non-standard Facilitator – followed script, engaged with process Use of supporters Use of undertrained community representatives The negotiation of outcome agreement

Reintegrative Shaming Experiments Randomised Controlled Trials RJ v Court –Juvenile property personal victim –Juvenile property corporate victim –Violent crime – young adults –Drink Driving - PCA

RISE – what I did Compared court (standard treatment) with RJ (new treatment) Random assignment to court or RJ No bias – therefore can be attributed to the treatment Manning mobile phones for RA, court and conference observation, interviewing offenders and victims

RISE – what they found Didn’t work for drink driving! Higher reoffending rate in RJ group 16% increase Biggest impact on violent crime – 38% decrease in reoffending Property offences with a personal victim – no difference Property offences with a corporate victim – no difference

Justice Research Consortium - London Project description – London = RCT involving Metropolitan Police led conferences with adult burglars and robbers RJ not diversion but in parallel to Crown/ Supreme court case

Findings Reduced level of PTSD in victims Reduced levels of fear, anger and increased levels of trust, self-confidence. RJ considered when sentencing – decreased costs of imprisonment Reoffending? RJ works better on violent crime.

ACT – Restorative Justice Unit Research-policy-legislation life cycle Crimes (Restorative Justice) Act 2004 Diversion, pre and post sentence Young offenders – less serious offence types (including culpable driving causing death)

Research into practice Use on offences with identifiable victim Diversion, in parallel with court, post-sentence Victim must participate in RJ Must be an outcome Must monitor and report compliance with outcome Independent feedback from victim and offender critical to ongoing improvement and recognition of RJ in the CJS