news
Attitudes of Victims and Offenders toward Restorative Justice
A June 2007 report from the Ministry of Justice in the UK reports the attitudes of victims and offenders participating in three different restorative justice schemes from 2001-2004. The evaluation shows that the majority of victims and offenders found the restorative justice process satisfactory, with communication being listed as one of the most important elements of the process.
The report Restorative Justice: The views of victims and offenders is the third evaluation report on three restorative justice schemes funded by the Home Office from 2001-2004. All three schemes dealt with adult offenders, some having committed very serious offenses. Two of the schemes, CONNECT and REMEDI, offered both direct and indirect mediation services, with CONNECT also offering conferencing services. The third, Justice Research Consortium (JRC), provided victim offender conferences that included support people in the process. The evaluation report discusses:
Data was gathered through interviews with participants in each of the three schemes, both a few weeks after the restorative process and a few months later. The interview sample included:
Participants’ expectations and preparation. According to the study, both victims and offenders wanted sufficient information about the restorative process to make an informed decision about participation. The programmes did well in this regard. For example, in the JRC scheme, over 75% of offenders and 86% of victims indicated that they had received enough information. However, participants were somewhat less satisfied with the information they were given about possible outcomes or follow-up to the event. Only 67% of offenders and 64% of victims experiencing the JRC conferencing scheme reported having received information about what would happen as a result of the restorative process. The same was true for the smaller samples of victims and offenders going through the CONNECT and REMEDI schemes.
In terms of the conference itself, 85% of victims and 80% of offenders who participated in the JRC scheme were very satisfied or quite satisfied with the conferencing experience. Only 7% of offenders and 8% of victims were dissatisfied with the restorative process. Generally, dissatisfaction was related to disagreement between the victim and offender about what actually happened. For example, in one case the participants felt the case was not appropriate for a conference since the offender had been drunk and could not remember much of what happened. In another case, the victim did not believe the offender’s claim that he could not remember the events due to being drunk.
An area of dissatisfaction for offenders was when their victims failed to participate. 133 conferences had victim participation and 11 did not. Those offenders meeting with their victims tended to be more satisfied with the restorative conference.
In the REMEDI scheme, the majority of participants, both victims and offenders, expressed satisfaction with the direct mediation process stating that they felt safe and that the mediators were impartial. There was only one case with a dissatisfied victim who did not have expectations – an offender apology – met through the process.
Outcomes of conferences. Both victims and offenders tended to be satisfied with the agreement made during the conference, with 67% of offenders and 71% of victims saying it was very fair. Only 12% of victims and 10% of offenders expressed concerns about the process for developing agreements.
Direct vs. indirect mediation. In terms of indirect mediation, victims and offenders participating in both the REMEDI and CONNECT schemes tended to rate the staff and process of the schemes very highly. However, some participants – victims and offenders – questioned whether or not information was being passed to the other party exactly as they had intended or if the programme staff were editing communications.
Conclusion. Overall participants in all three restorative justice schemes under evaluation were satisfied with the process and outcomes.
For JRC conferences, 75% of both victims and offenders found the process useful and were satisfied with the outcome, and 75% would definitely or probably recommend conferencing to someone in a similar situation. Of the 152 offenders and 216 victims, only six victims and six offenders were not really or not at all satisfied with the restorative justice process.
Comments for both REMEDI and CONNECT were also very positive. The majority of both victims and offenders found the mediation process useful. However, this was more often the case with offenders than with victims. In REMEDI, no offenders expressed dissatisfaction with the mediation process while some victims did, especially in indirect mediation cases. Most of the dissatisfaction stemmed from not receiving enough information about or from the other party. As to recommending mediation to someone else, the majority of offenders and victims said that they would recommend the process. However, a small group of victims responded that they would not.
Read the full report online from the ministry of Justice at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research190607.htm.
July 2007
- Participants’ expectations and how well they were prepared
- Attitudes toward the process itself
- Outcomes of the restorative process and follow-up
- Comparison of direct and indirect mediation with conferencing
Data was gathered through interviews with participants in each of the three schemes, both a few weeks after the restorative process and a few months later. The interview sample included:
- 4 offenders and 11 victims from CONNECT from a total of 50 cases with 37 going through indirect mediation, 11 direct mediation and 2 conference
- 152 offender and 216 victims from JRC from 342 cases that went through conference
- 24 offenders and 32 victims from REMEDI from a total of 132 cases with 97 going through indirect mediation and 35 direct.
Participants’ expectations and preparation. According to the study, both victims and offenders wanted sufficient information about the restorative process to make an informed decision about participation. The programmes did well in this regard. For example, in the JRC scheme, over 75% of offenders and 86% of victims indicated that they had received enough information. However, participants were somewhat less satisfied with the information they were given about possible outcomes or follow-up to the event. Only 67% of offenders and 64% of victims experiencing the JRC conferencing scheme reported having received information about what would happen as a result of the restorative process. The same was true for the smaller samples of victims and offenders going through the CONNECT and REMEDI schemes.
In terms of the conference itself, 85% of victims and 80% of offenders who participated in the JRC scheme were very satisfied or quite satisfied with the conferencing experience. Only 7% of offenders and 8% of victims were dissatisfied with the restorative process. Generally, dissatisfaction was related to disagreement between the victim and offender about what actually happened. For example, in one case the participants felt the case was not appropriate for a conference since the offender had been drunk and could not remember much of what happened. In another case, the victim did not believe the offender’s claim that he could not remember the events due to being drunk.
An area of dissatisfaction for offenders was when their victims failed to participate. 133 conferences had victim participation and 11 did not. Those offenders meeting with their victims tended to be more satisfied with the restorative conference.
In the REMEDI scheme, the majority of participants, both victims and offenders, expressed satisfaction with the direct mediation process stating that they felt safe and that the mediators were impartial. There was only one case with a dissatisfied victim who did not have expectations – an offender apology – met through the process.
Outcomes of conferences. Both victims and offenders tended to be satisfied with the agreement made during the conference, with 67% of offenders and 71% of victims saying it was very fair. Only 12% of victims and 10% of offenders expressed concerns about the process for developing agreements.
Direct vs. indirect mediation. In terms of indirect mediation, victims and offenders participating in both the REMEDI and CONNECT schemes tended to rate the staff and process of the schemes very highly. However, some participants – victims and offenders – questioned whether or not information was being passed to the other party exactly as they had intended or if the programme staff were editing communications.
Conclusion. Overall participants in all three restorative justice schemes under evaluation were satisfied with the process and outcomes.
For JRC conferences, 75% of both victims and offenders found the process useful and were satisfied with the outcome, and 75% would definitely or probably recommend conferencing to someone in a similar situation. Of the 152 offenders and 216 victims, only six victims and six offenders were not really or not at all satisfied with the restorative justice process.
Comments for both REMEDI and CONNECT were also very positive. The majority of both victims and offenders found the mediation process useful. However, this was more often the case with offenders than with victims. In REMEDI, no offenders expressed dissatisfaction with the mediation process while some victims did, especially in indirect mediation cases. Most of the dissatisfaction stemmed from not receiving enough information about or from the other party. As to recommending mediation to someone else, the majority of offenders and victims said that they would recommend the process. However, a small group of victims responded that they would not.
Read the full report online from the ministry of Justice at http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/research190607.htm.
July 2007
Document Actions
Last modified Jun 30, 2007 05:33 AM
