The success of restorative justice approaches has long been of interest within the field of criminology. Uncovering the outcome measures which identify the approach as being effective has become more important, as criminal institutions within Australia are seeking measures which result in positive achievement outcomes. The effectiveness of and empirical evidence on restorative justice processes will be discussed, focusing first on rates of recidivism among restorative justice youth and incarcerated youth, second on ownership or integrative shaming, third on the demographics associated with restorative practice research and studies, and finally on the closure provided by a simple apology. Throughout this discussion, sociological theories of crime that inform the practice will be highlighted. In this essay, the evolving concept of restorative justice is defined as a process whereby all parties who have been affected by an unjust act, come together in a non- dominant setting to discuss what has happened, the consequences of the injustice and to reach an agreement for moving on in the future (Braithwaite, 2001 & Laitmer, Dowden & Muise, 2005). Overall, contemporary empirical and theoretical literature argue mixed results as to whether restorative justice conferences affect future offending behaviour when compared to traditional adversarial procedures. That aside, this essay aims to highlight the success of restorative conferences by discussing rates of reoffending within the literature.
Incarceration through the adversarial system is a common pathway related to youth offending. On average, there were 949 young people incarcerated in the month of June 2019 (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019). Past studies have shown that on average, recidivism rates increase among offenders who have served a sentence in prison (Gendreau, Goggin & Cullen, 2002). For example, Matsuda (2009) claimed that the deprivation theory showed that the environment and interactions associated with being incarcerated, is related to reoffending behaviour among young offenders. This influence on reoffending can be emphasised through the social learning theory which explains how human behaviour can be depicted by the interactions between the individual and their environmental influences (Mcleod, 2016). In addition to Matsuda’s (2009) study, the Department of Justice (2002) conducted their own studies and found that more than half of the 272, 000 incarcerated people who participated in their study, reoffended within 3 years of being released. Once again, social learning theory can be explored to identify the interactions and influential environments present throughout the incarceration process that may be influencing these young offenders to reoffend. In comparison, restorative justice conferences are being acknowledged as an extremely powerful tool available to empower victims of crime and discourage future offending by those who have committed a crime. Studies show that when offenders are given the opportunity to address their behaviour and understand the harm caused by that behaviour, future reoffending is significantly reduced. Further, Cunningham (2007) found that a substantial amount (76%) of juveniles from restorative justice conferences did not reoffend. This study shows that restorative conferences are an approach that is proving to be effective in resolving conflict. In addition to this, Hayes (2005) conducted a comparative analysis which showed that reoffending rates were lower for those who had committed violent offences and were referred to restorative conferencing, compared to those violent offenders who were referred to court. It is clear from these studies, that being able to have a say in the justice process and show remorse, positively impacts the offender and the victim.
While recidivism is a behaviour that is difficult to influence, studies conducted by Latimer (2001) showed that restorative justice programs reduced reoffending rates by as much as 38%. Despite such extraordinary results, these findings have been debated, with other studies suggesting that there is no difference in re-offending rates for those referred to conference and those referred to court (Smith & Weatherburn, 2012). Smith and Weatherburn (2012) found no significant differences between conference and court participants for rates of reoffending. This study found that the same percentage of youth were reconvicted for a further offence just 24 months after their appearances (Smith & Weatherburn, 2012). While this is the case, several compelling studies show promising results when analysing the effects that restorative justice has on reducing reoffending among the youth offenders. A study conducted by Houston (2016) found that of 551 youth who were assigned to a restorative justice conference or a traditional court proceeding, that those who were put through the courts reoffended up to 50 percent of the time, whereas those who participated in a restorative program only reoffended 31 percent of the time. Although the adversarial system is a common pathway for youth offenders, studies have clearly shown that this method is not influential in reducing reoffending, whereas, restorative approaches are significantly reducing reoffending among youth offenders. This indicates its effectiveness as an approach to repair harm caused by criminal behaviour.
Conducting restorative conferences rather than traditional adversarial methods, has shown to be effective in not only reducing recidivism, but also improving other outcomes such as offender and victim satisfaction, as well as improving offender compliance with restitution agreements (Latimer et al., 2005). Restorative approaches aim to encourage offenders to take responsibility and acknowledge their behaviour and the effects that the behaviour has had on the victim. This ownership is crucial for the conference to reach a successful outcome. Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming is a major theoretical foundation which is applied to restorative practices and contributes to a reduction in recidivism. This theory is built on the foundation that societies who “shame” criminal behaviour, show significantly lower rates of crime compared to those societies who do not integrate shame (Braithwaite, 1996). It is important to note that reintegrative shaming is the “good” shaming. Braithwaite (2016) defines this form of shaming as a form of communication which treats an offender as a good person who has done or performed bad behaviour. Braithwaite (1989) states that utilising reintegrative shaming methods leads to a desistance from criminal behaviour and allows the offender to be reintegrated into their community.
Following on from this, studies conducted by Rodriguez (2007) agrees with Braithwaite (1989) in stating that youth offenders who appropriately participate in a restorative justice conference are less likely to reoffend in the future. However, a study conducted by Maruna (2017), disagrees by stating that restorative conferences cannot be described as creating desistence from crime as this term is applied when describing offending as being absent among those who have offended in the past. Despite disagreeing with the study conducted by Braithwaite (1989), Maruna (2017) stated that restorative practices are more accurately defined as a general theory for what should be done to repair the harm that has been caused by the offence. Further, when offenders appear to take responsibility for their behaviour and are observed to be remorseful for what they have done, reoffending is less likely (Hayes & Daly, 2003). It was also less likely for an offender to re-commit a crime if they believed that there was no stigmatising shaming present throughout the duration of the restorative conference (Maxwell & Morris, 2001). Braithwaite (2016) defines stigmatising shaming as a form of shame that makes the offender feel worse by shaming the offender as a person, instead of shaming the offending behaviour. Although some of the above studies disagree to some measure, they each suggest that there is value in discussing the emotional connections that restorative conferences facilitate and the role that these emotions play in reducing reoffending among youth offenders.
The specific demographics targeted to conduct studies on the effectiveness of restorative justice has seen more positive results towards youth offenders. It is clear from the research that boys are at higher risk of reoffending when compared to girls, however young male and female offenders who have participated in a restorative conference show lower risk than adolescents for reoffending rates (Rodriguez, 2007). Although this may be the case, other studies have found that the younger an offender was at the time of their first sentence, the more likely they were to reoffend (Sentencing Advisory Council, 2016). This conclusion made by the Sentencing Advisory Council (2016) disagrees with Travis Hirschi’s social control theory. This theory suggests that social bonds such as attachment will influence young people as they mature and will allow them to grow out of committing crime. In this instance, it is clear to see that these findings show one of the many ongoing debates surrounding the effectiveness or the success of restorative justice practices. Although there is extensive research highlighting the positive effects that restorative approaches have on reducing reoffending rates among youth offenders, there are some studies that have suggested bias with regards to selecting the offender population for their studies (Rodriguez, 2007).
Rodriguez (2007) findings stated that it is clear within the literature that despite insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of conferences on different aged offenders, studies to observe reoffending rates with and without conference are continuously directed towards youth offenders. It is this bias within the literature that creates an uncertainty as to whether restorative conferences are universally effective. In the same way, statistics show rewarding rehabilitation results among young offenders who have committed less serious offences such as theft or vandalism. Those individuals who commit violent offences are found to be the most likely group to show positive results for reoffending after participating in a conference (McLaughlin, Munice & Hughs, 2005). This study contributes to the debate regarding the effectiveness of restorative justice as it suggests that restorative conference success needs to not only be measured by the age and outcomes of the participants, but to potentially measure the different offending categories. On the contrary, a study conducted by Cunningham (2007) provided a robust statistical analysis on young offenders and found that restorative conferences work better for high risk groups when compared to safe groups. This statistical analysis found that very young offenders who were referred to conference were 3 times less likely to reoffend compared to the young offenders referred to court (Cunningham, 2007). It is clear from this literature, that restorative justice success is largely controversial depending on the measures considered. Following on from this, the study conducted by Rodriguez (2007), suggested that a main objection against the effectiveness of restorative practices is that the target group (youth offenders) who are willing to participate in the conferences are more generally those who have com