David R. Karp, Ph.D. Associate Dean of Student Affairs Professor of Sociology Skidmore College dkarp@skidmore.edu

1. David R. Karp, Ph.D. Associate Dean of Student Affairs Professor of Sociology Skidmore College dkarp@skidmore.edu Rick Shafer Associate Director Department of Student Life Michigan State University shaferrt@msu.edu

2. A Global Movement School Misbehavior United States Great Britain Violent Crime Peacebuilding after War or Genocide Thailand Rwanda Costa Rica Property Crime Indigenous Traditions Healing Dialogues with Inmates Australia

3. RJ Definition

4. Asking Different Questions

5. The Core Process Voluntary meeting between offender and harmed party Facilitators trained in RJ and mediation Intake Storytelling Listing Harms Finding Solutions • What can be done to repair the harm? • What can be done to rebuild trust? Agreement Mentoring

6. “Burning Bridges”

7. RJ Practices Victim RJ Circles Conferences Boards Community Offender

8. RJ Practices Victim Apology Restitution VIPs RJ Circles Conferences Boards Community Offender

9. RJ Practices Victim Apology Restitution VIPs Victim Support Groups RJ Circles Conferences Boards Community Offender

10. RJ Practices Victim Apology Restitution VIPs Victim Support Groups RJ Circles Conferences Boards Community Offender Community Service Offender Support Groups Victimless Hearings

11. RJ Practices Victim Apology Restitution VIPs Victim Support Groups RJ Circles Conferences Boards Community Offender Community Service Offender Support Groups Victimless Hearings

12. British Home Office Study • Great Britain funded substantial RJ programming beginning in 1999. • Shapland et al. (2007), University of Sheffield • Evaluation of three programs: • CONNECT in London • Adult offenders, variety of RJ services, but mostly shuttle VOM • JRC in London, Northumbria, and Thames Valley • Adult and youth offenders; property and violent; RJ conferencing • REMEDI in Sheffield • Adult and youth offenders; property and violent; community and prison; mostly shuttle VOM and some VOM

13. British Home Office Study • Anticipating the conference: • Offenders and victims felt well-prepared • Offenders and victims felt it was voluntary • Both sides tended to think the process was primarily for the other, not themselves • Motivated to participate for the opportunity to communicate—to say how they felt, describe impacts, solve problems, and answer questions • Offenders motivated to make reparations, but this was less important to victims • About half in each group were motivated because they thought this would influence the criminal justice case

14. British Home Office Study

15. British Home Office Study

16. British Home Office Study • RJ vs. Court • Victims were more likely to view the sentence as appropriate and were more satisfied • Offenders were more likely to view the handling of their case as fair • Neither parties believe conferencing was either more severe or more lenient than court.

17. British Home Office Study • What didn’t go as well: • Less satisfaction when direct victims were not present (use of surrogates, or less affected parties) • Dissatisfaction when victims and offenders disputed the circumstances of the crime • Victims not always well-informed about offender progress on agreement completion • Apologies by offenders in shuttle VOM less likely to be accepted; victims were less satisfied with shuttle VOM

18. Why would offenders participate?

19. RJ Helps Offendershave a voice in the process I want to explain what happened I’m not a bad person I feel bad about what I did I will take responsibility

20. Why would victims participate?

21. RJ Helps Victimshave a voice in the process I want a say in what happens This is how you have harmed me I need to know if I am safe I have questions only you can answer I want to know if you are sorry

22. Role Play • Aikido Dojo Theft • One facilitator, two harmed parties