1 / 16

Life after my PhD

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

hani
Download Presentation

Life after my PhD

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

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

  2. 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

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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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

  7. 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

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

  9. 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

  10. Reintegrative Shaming ExperimentsRandomised Controlled TrialsRJ v Court • Juvenile property personal victim • Juvenile property corporate victim • Violent crime – young adults • Drink Driving - PCA

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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.

  15. 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)

  16. 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

More Related