10 February 2014 Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang University of Cambridge

1. 10 February 2014 Lawrence Sherman & Heather Strang University of Cambridge

2. 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 Attempted Murder in Australia

3. A “Restorative” Conference

4. 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 RJ Conference,No Prosecution

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Grievous Bodily Harm 2002: London Cab Driver Beaten, Robbed

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

11. 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 Two Histories

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

13. 5-year prison sentence Mother died Released at 2.5 years 47 days later re-arrested Charged, again, with robbery One Victim Not Helped

14. But these are stories.. • ANECDOTE, not evidence

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

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

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

18. Cost-Effective Justice7 UK (English) Experiments SITERJ COSTTotal BenefitTotal Ratio London 598,848 8,261,028 1:14 Northumbria 275,411 320,125 1:1.2 Thames Valley 222,463 461,455 1:2 Total 1,096,722 9,042,608 1:8  * Computed from Shapland et al, 2008. All amounts expressed in Pounds Sterling **CJ benefit estimated at an average 22% of total costs of crime

19. 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

20. Canberra:Did RJ Program Cause Crime Drop?

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

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

23. Canberra:Did RJ Program Cause Crime Drop?

24. Cause lies not in a Trend,but in aCOMPARISON or NET difference

25. 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)

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

27. “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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 10 RCTs Comparing Victim-Present RJCs with Conventional Justice Offender s 1. Australia <30 years violence (diversion) 121 2. Australia juvenile personal property (diversion) 249 3. US Indianapolis juvenile property/violence (diversion) 782 4. UK juvenile property/violence (police Final Warning) 165 5. UK adult property (Magistrates Courts) 63 6. UK adult assault (Magistrates Courts) 44 7. UK robbery (Crown Courts) 106 8. UK burglary (Crown Courts) 186 9.. UK violence – Probation 63 10. UK violence – Prison 103 Total offender N = 1882

31. Free Download: Just Google “Strang Restorative Justice Campbell”

32. 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

33. 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

34. Interviews With Victims in 4 Sites • After Restorative Conferences • 1995-2003 • Robbery, • Assault, • Burglary, • some other property crimes

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

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

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

38. 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

39. Average level of Victim Post Traumatic StressBoth Robbery & Burglary p ≤ 0.010

40. RJ Helps Women Victims PTSS More

41. 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.

42. 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

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

44. 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

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

46. 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

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

48. 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

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

50. 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