European best practices of restorative
justice in the criminal procedure
conference 27-29 April 2009, Budapest
Pushing the barriers: the use of restorative
justice with hate and sexual crimes
Dr. Theo Gavrielides
Chief Executive
Race on the Agenda (ROTA) and
Independent Academic Research
Studies (IARS), UK
Will RJ ever be good enough?
• The evidence on restorative justice (RJ) is far more
extensive, and positive, than it has been for many other
policies that have been rolled out nationally. Restorative
justice is ready to be put to far broader use …” (Sherman
and Strang 2007).
• However, Restorative justice is still far from being
mainstreamed or even accepted as an official response to
crime; least serious crime and adult offenders
Why hate crime and sexual offenes?
1. ‘Push the barriers’: theoretical proclamations vs practice
2. Grey areas for RJ: power imbalances between victim and
offender
3. Perpetrators of hate and sexual crimes fall within a
special category of criminological interest due to the deep
rooted causes of their behaviour and offending: how
susceptible are they to RJ?
4. Philosophical challenge: Can hate or sexual crime ever
be restored?
5. Policy: e.g. community cohesion
Definitions
• Restorative justice is “an ethos with practical goals, among which is
to restore the harm done by including all affected parties in a process
of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue, and by
adopting a fresh approach to conflicts and their control, retaining at the
same time certain rehabilitative goals” (Gavrielides 2003, 2007).
• Restorative practices are direct and indirect mediation, family group
conferences, healing and sentencing circles and community restorative
boards (Bazemore and Walgrave 1999: 127-235, Crawford and
Newburn 2003: chapter 2, Gavrielides 2007: 29-36).
• “Hate crime is when someone has hatred or prejudice against
someone because of their race or ethnicity, or religion, age, faith,
gender, sexuality, disability” (Black male, aged 25, Lewisham).
Project Methodology
• Phase 1: Desk Research (June 2005 – June 2007)
• Phase 2: Fieldwork (June 2007- 2008)
• Phase 3: Dissemination, awareness raising, policy
development and training (2008 – ongoing)
Fieldwork
•
•
•
•
Qualitative research
Interviews – questionnaires focus groups – observation
Sample: Practitioners, victims, offenders, policy makers, young
people (total 100)
Sexual offences: within the context of the Catholic Church cases
Hate crime and RJ best practice
examples
Hate crime and RJ best practice
examples
Findings – Hate crime/ 1
1. Typology of typical hate crime offender: none/ all
2. Victims
Findings – Hate crime/ 2
3. The “Spectrum of hate crime”: fluid - corruption
Findings – Sexual offences/ 1
1. The Case of the Mount Cashel Orphanage, St. Joseph’s
Training School for Boys, and St. John’s Training School for
Boys, USA
(a) Facilitation of apologies by those responsible for physical and
sexual abuse. (b) Financial compensation for pain and suffering. (c)
Financial advances for medical/ dental services, vocational
rehabilitation, educational upgrading, and literacy training. (d) Provision
of counseling services. (e) Payment to ex-students who had not been
paid for farm work and menial work while they were at the schools. (f) A
commitment by the participants to work towards the eradication of child
abuse”
Findings – Sexual offences/ 2
2. The Fraser Region Community Justice Initiatives
Association (FRCJIA), Canada
3. School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith
University, Brisbane, Australia
387 cases (227 court, 119 restorative conferences and 41 formal cautions) during a 6.5 years period (1
January 1995-1 July 2001) concluded with the following findings:
•
•
•
•
•
Victims believe that they are better off if their case is handled restoratively
If a sexual offending case goes to court the chances of being proved is half (51%). This has severe
consequences on the victim including deep psychological and emotional stress, depression and
personality disorders
It appears that the potential problems of a restorative process may be less victimizing than the
formal legal process
The traditional criminal justice process has proved to do very little for victims as long as offenders
can deny they have done anything wrong
Restorative processes can open a window for those who have offended to admit to what they have
done.
Findings – Hate and sexual crime
• Restorative justice – transformative justice: pre-condition is
voluntariness
• Common element in all best practice case studies was
their partnership arrangements with existing structures
• RJ happens in the community and in the shadow of the law
• Challenges: Funding – training – accreditation – definition
• Mainstreaming is questionable – the “Gordon Ramsey test”
• Caution: Diluting the principles – no paradigm shift
language
References
•
•
•
Gavrielides Theo (2007) Restorative Justice Theory and Practice:
Addressing the Discrepancy, HEUNI: Helsinki, Criminal justice Press:
New York.
Gavrielides Theo and Dale Coker (2005) “Restoring Faith: Resolving the
Catholic Church’s Sexual Scandals through Restorative Justice: Working
Paper I”, 8:4 Contemporary Justice Review, pp. 345-365.
Gavrielides Theo (2008) “Restorative justice: the perplexing concept.
Conceptual fault lines and power battles within the restorative justice
movement” 8:2 Criminology and Criminal Justice Journal, 165-183
Contact Details
Waterloo Business Centre, Unit 217 & 208
117 Waterloo Road, London SE1 8UL
020 7902 11 77, Direct line 020 7902 1966, mobile: 07720057750
www.rota.org.ukwww.iars.org.uk
theo@rota.org.uk