Joanna Shapland

1. Desistance from crime and the potential role of restorative justiceEuropean Forum for Restorative JusticeBelfast, 11-14 June 2014 Joanna Shapland 1

2. Restorative justice and desistance – are there links? Criminology sees them as separate topics, with different theoretical backgrounds But between 2001-2008 I was involved in two empirical research studies – the Sheffield Desistance Study and the evaluation of restorative justice – And what the offenders were saying about their lives as they tried to desist in the Sheffield Desistance Study was very similar to what offenders were saying about restorative justice. So – are there links? How could they occur? 2

3. Evaluating restorative justice • evaluation of three schemes, funded by the Home Office/Ministry of Justice, • including conferencing (victim, offender, supporters of both, facilitator), direct mediation (victim, offender, facilitator) and indirect mediation (no meeting, facilitator ‘shuttles’ between offender and victim transferring questions and information) • observations of conferences/direct mediation; interviews with victims and offenders Sheffield Desistance Study • researching desistance • longitudinal study of 113 young adult men who were mostly persistent offenders, funded by the ESRC • followed from age 19-22 over about 3 years, with up to 4 long interviews 3

4. Desistance • desistance research - on stopping offending - has emphasised the importance of agency; links with resettlement/effects of social capital • Sheffield study: decisions to desist are surprisingly common and important in the (often slow and hesitant) process of actually desisting, which involves the concurrence of social and personal contexts with structures which facilitate a different lifestyle • offenders’ own views of where they want to go are important Restorative justice • A myriad theoretical positions for an umbrella concept • but many emphasise: • democratic/republican participation in decision making (e.g. Braithwaite) • the potential for repairing emotional harm done (e.g. Zehr) • encouraging communication in a safe manner; ensuring procedural justice (e.g. Tyler) 4

5. What seemed similar between the studies? • They were about stopping offending • A fairly similar age profile of offenders • Yes, but what was key was the similarity in what the offenders (and victims/supporters) were saying in conferencing/direct mediation • So, what is going on? • Are participants in restorative justice potential desisters? • What elements of the restorative justice meeting may link to desistance? • What elements of restorative justice outcomes may link to desistance? 5

6. 1. Restorative justice participants are likely to have decided to desist • In conferencing, the victim and the offender’s supporters will be present • Participation is voluntary – and, for these schemes, after admission by the offender of responsibility for the offence • So offenders had agreed they had done the offence and were prepared, nervously, to meet the victim – and talk – knowing there would be questions about their lives • And often envisaged apologising – including often taking steps to change their lives (we see this as symbolic reparation) • Can we not see this as having travelled quite a long way down the mental path to desistance? 6

7. 2. What elements of the restorative justice process may link to desistance? • RJ provides an opportunity for communication face to face, with victims – including apologising – and the preparation to think about all that • RJ separates the person of the offender from the offence. Desistance is learning to lead a new life in the community, with less/no offending – and maybe eventually a non-offending identity. • In the meeting, others (victim and supporters) may support and affirm pro-desistance statements by the offender. • Procedural justice and deliberative accountability views suggest processes seen to be fair promote legitimacy. Offenders saw RJ as fair. • Conferencing promotes future-oriented communication – what am I going to do now? And for offenders themselves to contribute to that. This is key for desistance. • A RJ meeting is a stage for conversation about desistance in a safe environment – sometimes it may also provide a push to changing views towards desistance as well 7

8. 3. What elements of restorative justice outcomes may link to desistance? • Not all RJ meetings involve or end in outcome agreements, but outcome agreements are agreed by all, including the offender, in the presence of the victim and supporters • And in our evaluation, it was the lay participants that played the major part in the discussions • They revolved around what the offender would do – 83% of JRC conferences specifically discussed how the offender could stop that kind of offending and problems related to offending • Outcome agreements were practical and related to that offender and situation – can we characterise them as individualised desistance plans? • Desistance plans supported often by supporters – and not top-down rehabilitation ‘do this’ plans, but targeted with and agreed by the offender The desistance journey involves problem-solving to surmount many practical obstacles – RJ may help 8

9. So, in restorative justice language, conferences provide: • communication between parties • answering questions • offenders taking responsibility • closure • affirmation for apologies and moving to a new life • reintegrative shaming • clear, concrete actions in the future • opportunities for support in those activities • access to relevant programmes 9

10. So, in restorative justice language, conferences provide: So, in desistance language, conferences provide: • communication between parties  communication about how offending happens • answering questions how it occurred  more clarity where ‘weakness of will’ occurs • offenders taking responsibility  opportunities to state intention to desist • closure  emotional closure/showing altruism for that V • affirmation for apologies  reinforcement of a different potential identity • affirmation for changing to a new life  clarification of what a different life might be • reintegrative shaming  reinforcement of a different potential identity • clear, concrete actions in the future  practical steps to address offending-related problems and solve practical difficulties • support in those activities  increasing social capital from supporters/professionals • access to relevant programmes  increasing social capital • events for those involved  relatively public, staged desistance events 10

11. Some references: Robinson, G. and Shapland, J. (2008) ‘Reducing recidivism: a task for restorative justice?’, British Journal of Criminology, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 337-358 Bottoms, A.E., Shapland, J., Costello, A., Holmes, D. and Muir, G. (2004) ‘ Towards desistance: theoretical underpinnings for an empirical study', Howard Journal, vol. 43, pp. 368-89 Bottoms, A.E. and Shapland, J. (2011) ‘Steps towards desistance among male young adult recidivists’, in S. Farrall, R. Sparks, S.Maruna and M. Hough (eds) Escape routes: contemporary perspectives on life after punishment. London: Routledge, pp. 43-80 Dignan, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, H., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G., Shapland, J. and Sorsby, A. (2007) ‘Staging restorative justice encounters against a criminal justice backdrop: a dramaturgical analysis’. Criminology and Criminal Justice, vol. 7, pp. 5-32. Shapland, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2011) Restorative justice in practice. London: Routledge.