Seminari Justícia Restaurativa a Europa. Evolució i perspectives actuals. Frieder Dünkel

ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD –

DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGYFrieder Dünkel

Restorative Justice in Penal

Matters in Europe

Frieder Dünkel

Barcelona, 10 October 2014

Sponsored by the European Commission‘s Specific Programme

„Criminal Justice 2007-2013“ and the University of Greifswald

JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1525



History and aims of the project

• Start: 1 July 2011

• End: 31 December 2014

• Title: Restorative Justice in Penal Matters in Europe

• Aims:

• Stocktaking and comparison of restorative justice measures

and processes/procedures in 36 countries and jurisdictions

• Legislative aspects

• Practice

• „Good practices“ and „bad experiences“

• Evaluation of RJ-procedures and measures

• Recommendations for further developing RJ in the context in

different countries

Countries and jurisdictions covered by the study

• Austria

• Belgium

• Bosnia-Hercegovina

• Bulgaria

• Croatia

• Czech Republic

• Denmark

• England/Wales

• Estonia

• Finland

• France

• Germany

• Greece

• Hungary

• Ireland

• Italy

• Latvia

• Lithuania

• Macedonia

• Montenegro

• Netherlands

• Northern Ireland

• Norway

• Poland

• Portugal

• Romania

• Russia

• Scotland

• Serbia

• Slovakia

• Slovenia

• Spain

• Sweden

• Switzerland

• Ukraine

• Turkey

Contents of national reports

1. Origins, aims and theoretical background of

Restorative JusticeVictim/Offender orientation, historical contextual variables, basic assumptions of

penal law and criminology, aims of reforms, influence of international standards

2. Legislative basis for Restorative Justice at different

stages of the criminal procedure in juvenile and adult

criminal lawPre-court level (diversion), court-level, restorative elements while serving prison

sentences in juvenile and adult criminal settings

3. Organisational structures, restorative procedures and

delivery VOM, conferencing, reparation, compensation orders, community service, RJ in

prisons

4. Research, evaluation and experiences with Restorative

JusticeStatistical data, implementation research and evaluation (preventing re-offending)

5. Concluding remarks

Definitions

• What does Restorative Justice mean?

• RJ is “any process in which the victim and the offender, and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community members affected by a crime, participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator.” Art. 2 ECOSOC Res. 2002/12

Definitions

• “Restorative outcomes are agreements reached as a result of a restorative process. [They] include responses and programmes such as reparation, restitution and community service, aimed at meeting the individual and collective needs and responsibilities of the parties and achieving the reintegration of the victim and the offender.” Art. 3 ECOSOC Res. 2002/12

Outcome oriented definition

• RJ aims “to resolve conflict and to repair harm. It encourages those who have caused harm to acknowledge the impact of what they have done and gives them an opportunity to make reparation. It offers those who have suffered harm the opportunity to have their harm or loss acknowledged and amends made.” Liebmann

2008, p. 301.

• Other definitions instead emphasize the process of conflict resolution/mediation.

What are the differences between the classic criminal justice approach and Restorative Justice?

Restorative Justice• Restorative Justice can be seen as an alternative

justice approach – extra-judicial conflict resolution

• RJ replaces the traditional justice system

• RJ elements can also be a part of the traditional justice system which partly transfer the classic penal philosophy

• Restorative elements within the criminal justice system are mediation, reparation, restitution as diversionary measures or non-custodial sentences.

• It can also be an additional part of custodial or non-custodial sentences and even of conditional release from prison.

Criminal law theory and mediation (Restorative Justice)

• Principles of juvenile justice:

• Principle of subsidiarity (priority to diversion and minimum intervention)

• Priority of the educational goal (aspects of special prevention, rehabilitation of mediation)

• Aspects of criminal theory (aims of criminal justice):

• Mediation corresponds to the theory of (positive) special prevention (resocialization) and positive general prevention (norm validation in the general society through the offender taking responsibility for his wrongdoing)

10

ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITÄT GREIFSWALD –

LEHRSTUHL FÜR KRIMINOLOGIEDr. Christine Morgenstern

Criminological basics of mediation

• Crime theories:

• Theory of neutralization

• The threshold for committing criminal offences is

lower if processes of vilification or even

dehumanization take place The inhibition

threshold can be increased by techniques that

confront the offender with the pain he has caused

to the victim. 11



Criminological basics of mediation (2)

• Of major importance has been John Braithwaite„s

theory of Re-integrative Shaming (1989).

• The natural sense of shame is to be used to validate

the wrongdoing for the offender (he should recognize

his wrong-doing and take responsibility), on the other

hand the society demonstrates its willingness to

forgive and re-integrate the offender.,

• The parallel of Christian believe: Hate the sin, but

love the sinner!

• Consequences for crime policy:

• Restorative justice, (family group) conferencing etc.12



• Manifestations of reparation, reconciliation and restitution

have existed in customary law and ancient laws since the

middle ages (Brehon Law in Ireland; Peace Councils in

Macedonia; also Russia, Bulgaria)

• „Modern rejuvenation“ of RJ has footings in traditional

modes of conflict resolution of indigenous populations

(Maoris in New Zealand, Aborgines in Australia f. ex.)

• Developments of RJ in the context of offending one

element of rise in use of alternative modes of conflict

resolution in other spheres of social life (community,

neighbourhood, school, family and business disputes for

instance)

Roots of Restorative Justice in Penal Matters in Europe



„Motors“ for Reform

Abolitionist thinking (Christie,

Hulsman, Mathiesen)

Austria; Croatia; Finland; the Netherlands;

Norway; Spain;

Victims Movement, strengthening

role of victims

Croatia; Denmark; England/Wales; France;

Germany; Greece; the Netherlands;

Montenegro; Norway; Poland; Russia; Serbia;

Spain; Sweden; Switzerland

Rehabilitation and reintegration

over retribution and punishment;

Diversion

Austria; Belgium; Bosnia-Herzegovina;

Croatia; France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland;

Italy; the Netherlands; Northern Ireland;

Portugal; Romania; Russia; Scotland; Serbia;

Slovenia; Spain; Switzerland; Ukraine.

Reforms in particular in the field of

Juvenile Justice

Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina; England/Wales;

Estonia; Germany; Ireland; Italy; Norway;

Portugal; Romania; Russia; Spain;

Switzerland;



Compliance with

international standards,

EU harmonization

Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia;

Czech Republic; Estonia; Hungary;

Macedonia; Montenegro; Netherlands;

Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovenia;

Serbia; Turkey; Ukraine;

Curbing custody rates

Estonia; Hungary; Ireland; Northern

Ireland; Norway; Poland; Romania;

Russia; Scotland; Slovakia; Slovenia;

Turkey; Ukraine;

Lack of trust in the judi-

ciary following a period of

transition

Bulgaria; Czech Republic; Macedonia;

Northern Ireland.

Inefficiency of an over-

burdened criminal justice

system; caseloads

Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia;

Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Macedonia;

Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia;

Turkey.

International standards

• Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec (99) 19 concerning mediation in penal matters

• Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings

• Resolution 2002/12 of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters

• Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime;

Rec (99) 19 concerning mediation in penal matters

• Rule 1: Mediation in penal matters should only take place if the parties freely consent. …

• Rule 3: Mediation in penal matters should be a generally available service.

• Rule 4: Mediation should be available at all stages of the criminal justice process.

• Rule 5: Mediation services should be given sufficient autonomy within the criminal justice system.

• Other standards: Basic facts of the offence must be consented, obvious disparities (e. g. age, intellectual capacities) be observed, qualification/training, impartiality of mediators, agreements (obligations) must be “reasonable and proportionate”.

International standards (3)

• Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2003) 20 concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile offenders and the role of juvenile justice;

• Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2006) 2 concerning the European Prison Rules (EPR)

• Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2008) 11 on European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject to Sanctions or Measures (ERJOSSM)

Example ERJOSSM• Nr. 15 ERJOSSM: Mediation or other restorative

measures shall be encouraged at all stages of dealing with juveniles.

• Nr. 22.1: A wide range of community sanctions and measures, adjusted to the different stages of development of juveniles, shall be provided at all stages of the process.

• Nr. 22.2: Priority shall be given to sanctions and measures that may have an educational impact as well as constituting a restorative response to the offences committed by juveniles.

Example ERJOSSM (2)• Juveniles deprived of their liberty:

• Nr. 79: Regime activities shall aim at education, personal and social development, vocational training, rehabilitation and preparation for release. These may include: …

• programmes of restorative justice and making reparation for the offence

• Nr. 94.1: Disciplinary procedures shall be mechanisms of last resort. Restorative conflict resolution and educational interaction with the aim of norm validation shall be given priority over formal disciplinary hearings and punishments

„Gate keepers“ of the criminal justice system

• Police (Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions with the power for diverting cases on that level)

• Prosecutors (if the principle of opportunity applies)

• Courts (either referring to court diversion powers or in the sentencing stage reparation orders, reparation, mediation as a condition of suspended sentences)

• Prison authorities (governors) (for mediation/reparation in prisons)



Forms of Restorative Justice and Practice in Europe

Victim Offender

Mediation /

Reconciliation

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina,

Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,

Denmark, England/Wales, Estonia, Finland,

France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland,

Italy, Latvia, Lithuania (!), Macedonia,

Montenegro, the Netherlands Norway,

Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia,

Scotland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain,

Switzerland, Turkey (!), Ukraine.

Conferencing

Austria, Belgium, England/Wales, Germany,

Hungary, Ireland, Latvia, Northern Ireland,

the Netherlands, Poland, Scotland, Ukraine.



Forms of Restorative Justice and Practice in Europe (2)

Reparation independent

of restorative processes

(stand-alone court

interventions, grounds for

sentence mitigation,

diversion)

Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,

England/Wales, Estonia, France, Germany,

Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania,

Macedonia, Montenegro, the Netherlands,

Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia,

Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland,

Turkey, Ukraine.

Community Service

Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia,

Czech Republic, Denmark, England/Wales,

Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary,

Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia,

Montenegro, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia,

Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine.



Implementation of Victim-Offender-Mediation /

Reconciliation

• Council of Europe Recommendation Rec (1999) 19

concerning Mediation in Penal Matters:

VOM is “a process whereby the victim and the

offender are enabled, if they freely consent, to participate

actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime

through the help of an impartial third party (mediator)”

• Confidentiality, Voluntariness, Impartiality Turkey

(prosecutors as “mediators”); Lithuania (Judges as

“mediators”); Police-led mediation in the UK could be

problematic



Implementation of Victim-Offender-Mediation /

Reconciliation (2)

Significant variation in terms of:

• Nationwide provision in practice the exception

(Germany, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Belgium,

Netherlands, Norway);

• In many countries, VOM is one of many means for

fulfilling preconditions for diversion or mitigation;

• Bodies responsible for providing VOM-Services

(NGOs, Probation Service, Social Services, Private

entities; numerous thereof);

• Background/Professional status of Mediators

(volunteers, professionals, probation or social

workers).

Availability of providers of Victim Offender Mediation

Services according to degree of geographic coverage

Country Nationwide availability

of VOM services

Regional availability

of VOM services

Austria X

Belgium X

Bosnia-Herzegovina X

Bulgaria X

Croatia X

Czech Republic X

Denmark X

England/Wales X

Estonia X

Finland X

France X

Germany X

Greece X

Hungary X

Ireland X

Italy X

Latvia X

Council of Europe Rec (99) 19

Rule 3: „Mediation in penal

matters should be a generally

available service”.

Availability of providers of Victim Offender Mediation Services according to degree

of geographic coverage

Country Nationwide availability of VOM services Regional availability of VOM s.

Lithuania X

Macedonia X

Montenegro X

The Netherlands X X

Northern Ireland X

Norway X

Poland X

Portugal X

Romania X

Russia X

Scotland X

Serbia X

Slovakia X

Slovenia X

Spain X

Sweden X

Switzerland X

Turkey X

Ukraine X



Victim Orientation:

• Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Sweden,

Romania

• Not necessarily directly linked to the criminal procedure

• Rarely guaranteed benefits of diversion or mitigation for

offender

• Resolving conflict between victim and offender, not

offender and state

• Lack of „incentives“ increases likelihood of genuinely

voluntary participation and avoids „tactical remorse“

• Reaffirmation of offences being conflicts between

offender and State?

Victim orientation vs. Offender orientation



Offender-Orientation:

• Reaching an agreement through a restorative

process or successfully delivering reparation has

effects on criminal process (diversion, mitigation,

court-sanction)

• Often limited to certain types of offences (offences

that can attract custodial sentences of up to 3 or

sometimes 5 years); “complainant’s crimes”

• Proportionality and due process over interests of

victim in more serious cases

• Access mostly dependent on judicial discretion

(„gatekeepers“)

Victim orientation vs. Offender orientation (2)



Conferencing

• Predominantly limited to localized projects in the field of Juvenile

Justice (Austria, Germany, Hungary, Ukraine, Latvia, Poland, Scotland,

Netherlands);

• Nationwide provision in Northern Ireland, Belgium, (England/Wales),

Ireland;

• Conferencing involves a wider range of participants, like for instance

family members, friends and importantly representatives from the local

community

• Experience with conferencing has been accompanied with high levels of

participant satisfaction and promising reoffending rates, most prominently

in Northern Ireland;

• Conferencing is a viable option for cases of more serious offending,

and could be a means for expanding the use of Restorative Processes

beyond the current concentration in the sphere of diverting less serious

offending from the formal criminal procedure.



Reparation outside of Restorative Processes

• Approaches that seek to effect the delivery of reparation by

offenders to victims of crimes, or to take such reparation by

the offender into account in the criminal procedure

• Specific reparative court measures, like “Reparation Orders”

in the UK, or certain “educational measures” or “special

obligations” that require the making of apologies or

(non)financial reparation to victims;

• Condition of voluntariness of offender to deliver and victim to

receive reparation;

• Most common manifestation of reparation-oriented practices

outside of restorative processes lies in special provisions of

substantive and procedural criminal law that provides for

court diversion or sentence mitigation in the event of effective

repentance.



Community Service

Predominantly used as:

• Alternative to custodial sentences/fines for cases

within a specified severity threshold;

• Standalone sanction introduced with the intention of

providing courts with alternatives to custody;

• Educational measure in the context of juvenile

justice as a condition for diversion from prosecution

or court punishment;



Does Community Service fall within the scope of

Restorative Justice?

• Rarely stated as possible element of restorative agreements

(Portugal, Slovenia, Northern Ireland);

• Rarely stated that offender performs the work for the victim

(Switzerland, Poland);

• Wright 1991: Central tenet of CS had originally lain in

restorative thinking, “with punitive elements of community

service orders […] [attending] its imposition […] only as by-

products of the offender’s commitment of time and effort”

• Working for charities, welfare institutions, persons in need or

public institutions can be regarded as “reparation” to the

community at large;

• Voluntariness questionable



Stages of Criminal Procedure at which RJ is available

Delivery of reparation

or successful

restorative process as

grounds for/condition

of pre-court diversion

Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Belgium; Bulgaria;

Croatia; Czech Republic; England/Wales;

Estonia; Finland; Germany; Greece; Hungary;

Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Macedonia;

Montenegro; Netherlands; Northern Ireland;

Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russia;

Scotland; Serbia; Slovenia; Slovakia; Spain;

Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine

Delivery of reparation

or successful

restorative process as

ground for/condition of

court diversion

Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia;

Czech Republic; Estonia; Germany; Greece;

Hungary; Italy; Latvia; Lithuania; Macedonia;

(Netherlands); Montenegro; Poland; Scotland;

Switzerland; Romania; Russia; Serbia; Slovenia;

Spain; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine



Court Sanctions with

restorative character

(including Community

Service)

Austria, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria,

Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark,

England/Wales, Estonia, France, Germany,

Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia,

Lithuania, Macedonia, Montenegro, the

Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,

Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia,

Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine.

RJ as a ground for

sentence mitigation

Belgium; Croatia; Denmark; Estonia; Finland;

Germany; Greece; Ireland; Latvia; Lithuania;

Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania;

Russia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey;

Ukraine



• Rule 56.2 of the European Prison Rules states that

“whenever possible, prison authorities shall use mechanisms

of restoration and mediation to resolve disputes with and

among prisoners.”

• Predominantly available only in individual institutions as pilot

projects (England/Wales, Bulgaria; France, Hungary; Italy;

Latvia; Netherlands; Norway; Poland, Scotland; Switzerland;

Ukraine); but nationwide in Belgium!

Use of RJ practices in

prison settings

Belgium; Bulgaria; Denmark; England/Wales;

Finland; France; Germany; Hungary; Italy;

Latvia; Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal;

Scotland; Switzerland; Russia; Spain; Ukraine;



Restorative Justice in Prison settings

• Poland, Portugal, Croatia, Germany: Legislative

provision is made for RJ in prisons, however are

largely defunct in practice as no sufficient services

are provided;

• The actual tendencies go beyond this:

• Restorative Justice a potentially promising strategy

for early release programmes, rehabilitation

programmes, as conditions to be met when released

on probation and as means of resolving conflicts

within prisons.

• The idea of Restorative Prisons

• Prisoners are making good to the society, in

particular in the nearby community setting

(community service etc.)



The Use of Restorative Justice in Practice

• Finland: 9.248 adult offenders and 4.311 juvenile offenders

referred to VOM in 2011;

• Norway: about two thousand young offenders are referred

to VOM each year. By contrast, only about 1/10th that

number of adults are referred;

• Austria: roughly 5-6% of all juveniles who come to the

attention of the prosecution service are referred to VOM.

There, the figures have in fact been declining in recent

years, from over 1.500 in 2005 to just under 1.300 in 2009;

• The declining trend can also be seen in Slovenia, where in

2004 just over 1.900 VOMs were conducted with adult

offenders and 344 with juvenile offenders – the respective

absolute figures for 2011 were 1.532 and 88 respectively.



The Use of Restorative Justice in Practice (2)

• Slovenia is an interesting anomaly in Europe in that VOM plays a

greater role with adult offenders. The same applies to Hungary as well,

where in 2011 there were 3.874 VOMs with adult offenders, yet only

370 involving juvenile offenders;

• In England and Wales, 33% of all court sanctions are Referral Orders,

however the restorative value of Referral Orders remains to be

discussed, with a victim participation rate of only 12% and only 7% of

agreed reparation actually being made to the direct victim. Only

marginal role for adults;

• In Germany, 2% of all court interventions in 2010 were referrals to VOM

(2.700 in absolute terms), and a further 3.2% were Reparation

Measures; 1.000 VOMs at court level for adults in 2010; (but 41% of

juvenile court dispositions in 2012 were community service orders!,

mainly used as punishments, rarely as educational or restorative

measures, 49% of 14-17 years-old juveniles and 33% of 18-20 years-

old young adults were involved)



The Use of Restorative Justice in Practice (3)

• In the remainder of the countries who were able to provide data, the

annual case loads are low, and not representative for the whole country.

But the picture remains that they are used only sparingly;

• Portugal: In 2011, 90 requests for VOM involving adult offenders, 38

completed; 150 juvenile cases per year;

• Poland: 200-300 per year (juveniles); 960 successful VOMs involving

adults in 2010;

• Bulgaria: 2% of all court measures for juveniles involve RJ;

• Ukraine: 364 referrals of juveniles 2004-2011;

• Estonia: Use increasing (32 VOM in 2007, 417 in 2011). 2% of

diversionary measures in 2007, 8% in 2011.

• Latvia: 2005 there 51 VOMs, 2013 about 950; 23% court sanctions are

to community service



What are the reasons for low use of RJ in

practice?

Lack of will among judicial

gatekeepers to use it•f. ex. distrust in legitimacy of

mediators as deliverers of justice;„

•monopoly of conflict resolution“;

Inappropriate, unclear or lack of

legislative basis reduces faith in RJ;

•availability of other diversiona-ry

options that are more in line with

traditional understanding of

appropriate intervention;

•strict application of the principle of

legality

Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina;

Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech

Republic; England/Wales;

Germany; Hungary; Italy;

Lithuania; Macedonia;

Montenegro; Poland;

Portugal; Romania; Russia;

Serbia; Slovenia; Spain;

Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine.



Lack of information and

awareness of benefits of RJ

(among legislators, politicians,

judicial gatekeepers and general

public)

Bosnia/Herzegovina; Bulgaria;

Croatia; Czech Republic;

Greece; Hungary; Latvia;

Macedonia; Poland; Romania;

Russia; Serbia; Slovenia;

Slovakia; Switzerland; Turkey;

Ukraine;

Lack of will among legislators

and politicians (in turn

connected to issues of poor/lack

of statutory basis, funding, lack

of information/awareness and

punitive climate)

Bosnia/Herzegovina; Bulgaria;

Croatia; England/Wales;

Germany; Greece; Italy;

Ireland; Lithuania; Macedonia;

the Netherlands; Russia;

Slovakia; Switzerland; Turkey;

Ukraine;

Punitive ClimateBulgaria, England/Wales,

Lithuania, Poland, Switzerland.

Evaluation of RJ measures concerning

recidivism

• With few exceptions (England, US) almost no

methodologically satisfying research on

recidivism after RJ measures/processes

exists.

• Some further research (Germany, Northern

Ireland) indicates that RJ is able to reduce re-

offending, at least is not less favourable

compared to other non-custodial sanctions.

Evaluation in Germany

• There is no systematic and nationwide evaluation concerning later recidivism in Germany

• However, a few studies reveal that mediation is not less integrative than other juvenile justice measures.

• Successful cases of mediation had slightly lower re-offending rates than juveniles under traditional community sanctions (incidence rate: 1.4 : 2.1 further offences, r = .14,

see Dölling/Hartmann/Traulsen, MschrKrim 2002, p. 185 ff.)

• In the Lüneburg mediation scheme 56% of bodily injury cases (n = 91) with mediation recidivated vs. 86% of the control group (n = 60), see Busse 2001, p. 138.

Evaluation issues

• High rates of satisfaction among victims and offenders who have participated in restorative processes.

• So-called meta-analyses revealed that restorative justice programmes (VOM and conferencing) in terms of effectiveness achieved higher rates of satisfaction among both victims and offenders than traditional criminal justice responses, alsoperceptions of fairness.

• Restorative practices are often associated with promising effects on recidivism, as evidenced by a growing pool of research results

Evaluation issues

• Restorative justice does not have a negative impact on re-offending.

• Bonta et al. state: “Restorative justice interventions, on average, are associated with reductions in recidivism. The effects are small but they are significant. It is also clear that the more recent studies are producing larger effects.”

Evaluation issues

• A Study in Northern Ireland by Lyness/Tate (2011) found that court-ordered youth conferences held in 2008 were linked to lower re-offending rates (45.4%) compared to community-based disposals (53.5%) and youth discharged from custody (68.3%).

• Diversionary youth conferences had a rate of 29.4%, however there is a need for caution in weighting these findings due to selection-biases and offender-intrinsic characteristics.

Evaluation issues

• Sherman/Strang (2008) point out that restorative justice also has potential to reduce the costs of criminal justice.

• Restorative practices in the context of diversioncan reduce court case-loads and thus the expense involved in bringing offences to justice. Furthermore, reducing the number of offenders coming before the courts can have down-tariffing effects on overall sentencing practices, as has recently been experienced in England/Wales.

Evaluation issues

• “Deflationary” effects can spread across the entire sentencing spectrum and thus reduce the use of costly custodial sentences.

• Finally, the potential positive effects on recidivism can imply lower costs occurring to society at large in the future.

• Restorative justice is a promising and desireable strategy that achieves the best outcomes when restorative processes are involved

50

Country Evaluation of the implementation of VOM

programmes

Evaluation concerningrecidivism

Evaluation concerning satisfaction of victims

Juvenile J. Adult C.L. Juvenile J. Adult C.L. Juvenile J. Adult C.L.

Austria Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Belgium Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

France Yes Yes No No Yes Yes

Germany Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Greece Yes Yes No No No No

Italy No No No No No No

Nether-lands

Yes Yes Yes (HALT) No Yes Yes

Portugal Yes Yes No No No No

Spain Yes Yes No No No No

Switzer-land

Yes n/a No n/a Yes n/a

Turkey No No No No No No

51

Country Evaluation of VOM programmes – Imple-

mentation/outcomes of VOM meetings

Evaluation concerningrecidivism - results

Evaluation concerning satisfaction of victims -

results

Juvenile J. Adult C.L. Juvenile J. Adult C.L. Juvenile J. Adult C.L.

Austria ++ + ++ + ++ ++

Belgium ++ ++ n/a n/a ++ ++

France + + No inf. No inf. + +

Germany ++ + + + ++ +

Greece - - No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf.

Italy No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf.

Nether-lands

+ + +/- (HALT) No inf. ++ ++

Portugal +/- - No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf.

Spain No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf.

Switzer-land

+ n/a No inf. n/a ++ n/a

Turkey No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf. No inf.

++ very positive; + = positive; +/- = neutral/mixed outcomes; - negative outcomes)



Central Issues – Outlook

• Researching and expanding „Conferencing“ in

Europe;

• Researching and expanding the use of Restorative

Processes and Practices in prisons;

• The conflict between the paradigms of Penal

Populism and Restorative Justice;

• The need to „build social support“ for Restorative

Justice in the general public, among criminal justice

practitioners, legislators and politicians;

• The need for legislation, implementation, practice

and indeed research itself to be „evidence-based.“



53

Thank you for your attention!

For further information:

Frieder Dünkel

Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University

of Greifswald,

Department of Criminology

Domstr. 20,

D-17487 Greifswald/Germany

E-mail: [email protected]

Internet: http://jura.uni-greifswald.de/duenkel

Tel.: ++49-(0)3834-862138