Restorative Justice – Rebalancing Justice · CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 14 RJ – rebalancing...
Transcript of Restorative Justice – Rebalancing Justice · CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 14 RJ – rebalancing...
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 1
Restorative Justice rebalancing JusticeRestorative Justice rebalancing Justice
Fourth Annual Criminal Law Conference Fourth Annual Criminal Law Conference Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights Centre for Criminal Justice and Human Rights
UCC June 2010UCC June 2010
what the what the
National Commission on Restorative National Commission on Restorative JusticeJustice
foundfound
Brian Fitzpatrick Brian Fitzpatrick Commission Director 2007 - 2009Commission Director 2007 - 2009
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 2
RJ – rebalancing Justice RJ – rebalancing Justice OutlineOutline
What did the NCRJ find?What did the NCRJ find?Terms of ReferenceTerms of Reference
reviewreview - application of RJ - application of RJ
reviewreview - research based evidence - research based evidence
considerconsider - wider application of RJ - wider application of RJ
What are the implications for What are the implications for victims?victims?
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 3
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeApplicationApplication ofof RJRJ
Models of RJModels of RJ Applications in IrelandApplications in Ireland Applications in common law Applications in common law
jurisdictionsjurisdictions Applications in civil law jurisdictionsApplications in civil law jurisdictions
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 4
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearchResearch BasedBased EvidenceEvidence FocusFocus
RJ models v other court disposalsRJ models v other court disposals Victim and Offender impactVictim and Offender impact Suitability of offencesSuitability of offences Public interest, cost and diversion Public interest, cost and diversion
from imprisonmentfrom imprisonment
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 5
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearchResearch BasedBased EvidenceEvidence – – EvaluationEvaluation
Scale Scale RJ in IrelandRJ in Ireland 538538Garda Diversion restorative events 2007Garda Diversion restorative events 2007 378378Court referred youth conferences p .aCourt referred youth conferences p .a 40 40Adult Pilot Scheme referrals 2007Adult Pilot Scheme referrals 2007 120120
RJ in Norway ( VOM referrals )RJ in Norway ( VOM referrals ) 9,120 9,120
Victim ParticipationVictim ParticipationVictim Offender MediationVictim Offender Mediation 40% to 60%40% to 60%Youth ConferencesYouth Conferences 50% NZ 1993 50% NZ 1993
69% NI69% NI2006200680% Australia 199980% Australia 1999
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 6
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence – CostsResearch Based Evidence – Costs
Estimated Cost per case Referred Begun Completed
UK 2008RJ Pilots £248 - £1,458 £887 - £2,333 £3,261 - £4,666
NI 2008 Youth Conferences £1,000 - £1,500
Nenagh 2007Panel €3,500 - €6,400
RJS Tallaght 2007 Panel/VOM
€3,250
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 7
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence EffectivenessResearch Based Evidence Effectiveness
NI YCS evaluation 2006NI YCS evaluation 2006 OffenderOffender experiencesexperiences 92% youths felt RJ helped them realise harm done 92% youths felt RJ helped them realise harm done 97% youths accepted responsibility for offence97% youths accepted responsibility for offence 98% youths able to engage fully in discussion at process98% youths able to engage fully in discussion at process 98% youths believed they were listened to98% youths believed they were listened to 93% youths felt conference plan reached was fair93% youths felt conference plan reached was fair
NI YCS evaluation 2008NI YCS evaluation 2008 RecidivismRecidivism 39% RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post RJ39% RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post RJ 73% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post prison73% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post prison 47% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post other disposal47% non RJ youths reconvicted 1 year post other disposal
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 8
RJ– rebalancing justiceRJ– rebalancing justiceNCRJNCRJ – – wider application / which modelwider application / which model
Wider application and targets Wider application and targets - Adults before the courts on criminal charges- Adults before the courts on criminal charges
- Offences for which sentences of up to 3 years - Offences for which sentences of up to 3 years imprisonment could be considered imprisonment could be considered
Most appropriate model Most appropriate model - consultation with victim and offender- consultation with victim and offender
- standards / consistency v flexibility- standards / consistency v flexibility
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 9
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeNCRJ – InfrastructureNCRJ – Infrastructure
Statutory ?Statutory ? Court controlCourt control Probation Service ledProbation Service led Community / Voluntary - InvolvementCommunity / Voluntary - Involvement Inter agency coordinationInter agency coordination State / Community / Practitioner – State / Community / Practitioner –
OversightOversight
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 10
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeNCRJ ProjectionsNCRJ Projections
Throughput targetsThroughput targets5,000 – 10,000 court referrals p.a. (75% RP, 25% VOM/RC) 5,000 – 10,000 court referrals p.a. (75% RP, 25% VOM/RC) 3,600 – 3,600 – 7,200 RJ outcomes p.a. (80% RP, 50% VOM/RC) 7,200 RJ outcomes p.a. (80% RP, 50% VOM/RC)
Cost of provisionCost of provision furtherfurther analysisanalysis requiredrequired
Impact of provision on custodial sanctionsImpact of provision on custodial sanctionsassume 290 to 580 prison committals diverted to RJassume 290 to 580 prison committals diverted to RJassume 210 to 420 conclude a non custodial outcome assume 210 to 420 conclude a non custodial outcome 210 to 420 diversions = estimated 42 to 85 prison spaces p.a.210 to 420 diversions = estimated 42 to 85 prison spaces p.a. 42 42 to 85 spaces p.a. = €4.1m to €8.3m p.a.to 85 spaces p.a. = €4.1m to €8.3m p.a.
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 11
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeImplicationsImplications forfor thethe VictimVictim
Conventional justice offence = breach of lawConventional justice offence = breach of law Restorative justice offence = harm to victimRestorative justice offence = harm to victim
Conventional justice engages legal practitionersConventional justice engages legal practitioners Restorative justice engages parties to the crimeRestorative justice engages parties to the crime
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 12
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing Justice Victim needs Victim needs
InformationInformation
-- on the criminal justice processon the criminal justice process-- on restorative justice processon restorative justice process-- on why the offence took place on why the offence took place -- on the final outcome of a caseon the final outcome of a case
CompensationCompensation-- recompenserecompense-- apologyapology
RestorationRestoration-- acknowledgement of harm doneacknowledgement of harm done-- assurance offence won’t recurassurance offence won’t recur-- role in resolving the offencerole in resolving the offence-- reconciliation with offenderreconciliation with offender
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 13
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeVictim concernsVictim concerns
Is RJ too soft a response to crime?Is RJ too soft a response to crime? Will the victim be coerced into RJ process?Will the victim be coerced into RJ process? Will meeting the offender expose the Will meeting the offender expose the
victim to further harm?victim to further harm? Can the victim opt out of the process at Can the victim opt out of the process at
any stage?any stage? Will the victim’s views be considered and Will the victim’s views be considered and
given due consideration in the RJ process?given due consideration in the RJ process?
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 14
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeReasons why Victims choose RJReasons why Victims choose RJ
To tell the offender about the impact of the offenceTo tell the offender about the impact of the offence To secure answers to questions about the crimeTo secure answers to questions about the crime To help the offender address criminal behaviourTo help the offender address criminal behaviour To seek reparationTo seek reparation To have a say in resolving the caseTo have a say in resolving the case To ensure that the offender’s action plan is an To ensure that the offender’s action plan is an
appropriate response to the offenceappropriate response to the offence To fulfil a sense of duty To fulfil a sense of duty
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 15
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeResearch Based Evidence VictimsResearch Based Evidence Victims
NI YCS 2006NI YCS 2006 69% victim participation69% victim participation
81% victims forgive81% victims forgive UK Pilots 2007UK Pilots 2007 70% victim satisfaction70% victim satisfaction NZ FGC 2005NZ FGC 200587% victims felt better87% victims felt better NSW 1999NSW 1999 80% victim participation80% victim participation 89% agree 89% agree
action planaction plan Austria 2002Austria 2002 RJ experience reduced RJ experience reduced harm felt by harm felt by
victimsvictims Norway 2005Norway 2005High victim satisfactionHigh victim satisfaction
CCJHR 4th ACL UCC 11/06/10 16
RJ – rebalancing JusticeRJ – rebalancing JusticeConclusionConclusion
Commission definition of RJCommission definition of RJ
Restorative Justice is a victim-sensitive response Restorative Justice is a victim-sensitive response to criminal offending, which, to criminal offending, which,
through engagement with those affected by crime through engagement with those affected by crime aims to make amends for the harm that has aims to make amends for the harm that has been caused to victims and communities and been caused to victims and communities and
which facilitates offender rehabilitation and which facilitates offender rehabilitation and integration into society.integration into society.