Universität Hamburg

1. Universität Hamburg Restorative Justice Seite 5

2. Restorative = 1. Having the power to restore. 2. To give back something taken away. 3. To bring back to a former condition - as by repairing or rebuilding. 2

3. Contents • 1. Beyond Punishment • 2. Origins • 3. Principles • 4. Practice • 5. Problems • 6. Evaluation 3

4. 1. Beyond Punishment • RJ is a philosophy and a method that balances the needs of the victims, the offender, and the community to repair the harm caused by a criminal offense. • RJ • makes offenders acknowledge the impact of what they have done • gives offenders opportunity to make reparation • offers victims the opportunity to have their situation acknowledged and amends made. 4

5. 1. Beyond Punishment Questions of the Criminal Justice System • Who did it? • What laws were broken? • How shall we punish the offender? • Questions of Restorative Justice • What is the harm? • What needs to be done to repair the harm? • Who is responsible for the repair? 5

6. Criminal Justice What laws have been broken? Who did it? What do they deserve? Restorative Justice Who has been hurt? Whatare their needs? Whose obligations are these? Different Questions 6

7. 1. Beyond Punishment Warum Datenbanken? 7

8. 1. Beyond Punishment Communities • Of Interest • Of Care Circles 8

9. 1. Beyond Punishment Conferencing Conferencing includes the offender, the victim, the offender’s supporters and the victim’s supporters, together with a facilitator, but not normally professionals - NOT the same as family group conferencing • The offender will explain how the offence happened • The victim will say the effects of the offence on them, as • will the victim’s supporters and the offender’s supporters • The conference will then turn to what could be done in • the future to improve things 9

10. 1. Beyond Punishment Mediation • Direct mediation: just the offender and the victim with a facilitator • Indirect mediation (shuttle mediation): where the facilitator passes information between the offender and victim, but there is no meeting. 10

11. 2. Origins • Aboriginal Justice (Maori, Navajo ...) • Faith Communities (Mennonites …) • Prison Abolition Movement (ICOPA …) • Criminology (Critique of Criminal Justice; Teubner‘s Trilemma, Search for Alternatives: Braithwaite …) 11

12. 2. Origins Prisons Full to Bursting 12

13. 2. Origins Prisons Activists 13

14. 2. Origins Prison Violence Warum Datenbanken? 14

15. 2. Origins Prison’s ineffectiveness Therapy Nothings Works Warehousing Just Deserts Overcrowding Repeat Offenders Terry Moffitt Lack of Shame, Insight Hardened Criminals Anti-Preventive Process 15

16. 2. Origins Disregard for Victims • Safety • Healing • Justice • Restitution Warum Datenbanken? 16

17. 2. Origins Disregard of Community • Safety • Healing • Justice • Prevention Warum Datenbanken? 17

18. 2. Origins Limits of Legal Regulation Teubner‘s Trilemma • Ineffectiveness • Self-Destruction of Legal System • Destruction of Regulatory Object Warum Datenbanken? 18

19. 3. Principles • Respect • Solidarity • Responsibility • Repair harm • Reduce Risk • Build community 19

20. 3. Practice Accountability Taking direct responsibility Taking action to make things right Communities and victims actively determine response Offender feels obligation to victims and community Victims and community set community standards for behavior and consequences 20

21. 3. Principles • Question: What does justice require? • Who has been hurt? • What are their needs? • Whose obligations are these? • Who has a stake in this situation? • What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to put things right? 21

22. 3. Principles • Retribution and RJ agree: • The offender owes something • The victim deserves something • As moral agents, offenders must take responsibility. The outcome must fit the offense. • But: • Retribution: What is deserved is pain • Restoration: What is owed is an effort to put things right. Warum Datenbanken? 22

23. 3. Principles • Guiding Questions: • Who has been hurt? • What are their needs? • Whose obligations are these? • Who has a stake in this situation? • What is the appropriate process to involve stakeholders in an effort to put things right? Warum Datenbanken? 23

24. 3. Principles Focus on needs rather than deserts Victim-Orientation: support and healing is a priority Offenders take responsibility for what they have done Dialogue to achieve understanding Attempt to put right the harm done Offenders look at how to avoid future offending The community helps to re-integrate both victim and offender Warum Datenbanken? 24

25. 3. Principles • For Victims: • Safety • Answers • Opportunities to tell their truths • Involvement, empowerment • Validation and vindication 25

26. 4. Practice • Questions: • What is the harm? • What needs to be done to repair the harm? • Who is responsible to repair the harm? 26

27. 4. Practice • What is the harm? • It is an injury to the victim, community, even the offender • Broken relationships 27

28. 4. Practice • What needs to be done to repair the harm? • Identify and clarify the harm that’s been done • Include the victim • Assess the offender’s capacity to make reparation • Facilitate opportunities for restoration to take place 28

29. 4. Practice • Who is responsible for the repair? • The offender, not the state, has primary and personal responsibility for making things right with the victim and the community. • The responsibility is shared by the agency, the offender, their family, the community and the victim. 29

30. 4. Practice • Public Safety Increases When… • Offenders develop internal controls • Community members resolve conflict • Community Justice is solution-focused • Community Justice partnerships are developed 30

31. Values and Components of Restorative Justice 31

32. Values and Components of Restorative Justice 32

33. Values and Components of Restorative Justice 33

34. Values and Components of Restorative Justice 34

35. 4. Practices Reparation Boards Victim/Offender Mediation Victim Impact Panels/Classes Warum Datenbanken? Circle Sentencing Conferencings Family Group Conferencing Community Service Reparation Boards 35

36. 4. Practice • Value and Method of Circles • Shared leadership, equality, visual contact among all participants at all times. • Talking piece: object chosen to designate the person whose turn it is to speak. Passed from person to person clockwise. 36

37. 4. Practice • Circle Guidelines • No interruptions; speak respectfully, speak honestly. Listen to others speaking. Speak as briefly as possible to make your point. Confidentiality. 37

38. 5. Problems Role of the State Safeguards against Misuse Activating Victims Activating Community 38

39. 6. Evaluation • Three Aims • Does RJ reduce reoffending? • Is it worth the money? • Does it respond to needs and rights of victims? 39

40. 6. Evaluation • Victims recommend restorative justice to others (70-80%) • Only 10% offenders and 12% victims expressed any doubt about the outcome agreement • 6 from 152 offenders (and 6 from 216 victims) were dissatisfied with RJ conferencing 40

41. 6. Evaluation • Restorative justice provides, for victimsand offenders: • Communication about offender-related problems • Mutual recognition • Problem-solving for the future 41

42. 6. Evaluation Victims are definitely positive about RJ - they say they and others are helped. Victims of more serious offences were particularly positive. For RJ conferencing, decreases in reoffending were sufficient to make conferencing value for money against the cost of the scheme. Mediation did not have the same impact. The current criminal justice system for adults is impoverished in terms of not providing enough opportunities to help offenders to desist (reduce/stop offending). 42

43. 43

44. Obrigado Marian Liebmann, Joanna Shapland, John Braithwaite, Howard Zehr,Louk Hulsman, Nils Christie e Connie Musolff 44