INDEPENDENT
ACADEMIC
RESEARCH
STUDIES
Giving everyone a chance to
forge a safer, better & more
inclusive society
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE & STREET GROUP VIOLENCE
2012 BRUCE AND LIS WELCH COMMUNITY DIALOGUE
8 May 2012, Vancouver
Dr. Theo Gavrielides
Starting from the end
Is restorative justice possible with riots?
“Yes” … but ...
This “but’ is not one coming from a politician, but from a
researcher.
Three more words:
complex / evidence-base/ real
“The focus of researchers should not be on the superiority
of restorative justice, but on the development of its
processes and principles”.
01
Summary
• Impetus for our project
• Project aims & partners
• Project methodology
• Summer 2011
• Defining “street group violence”
• Restorative justice – attempting to understand
• 7 case studies
• Key findings & a model for piloting
02
Why are we here? Four reasons!
1. June 2011 riots
• Directly or indirectly affected
• Researchers, policy-makers, practitioners or just
concerned citizens
• Frustration & strong emotions
• Still looking for justice
1. August 2011 riots
• What happened and what are we doing about it?
• Are communities and victims being restored?
• Are we also still looking for justice?
• Is the grass always greener?
03
Why are we here? Four reasons!
3. Legislative & Policy backdrop
British Columbia
• Feb 2012 Green Paper “Modernising BC Justice System”
• “Our reform initiative will identify long-term, fiscally
responsible solutions that improve outcomes and
accountability”, BC Premier Christy Clark
UK
• Dec 2010 Green Paper “Breaking the Cycle: Effective
Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders”
• “Our emphasis on greater use of restorative justice as
long as it is used appropriately, interventions are of
sufficiently high quality and there are sufficient safeguards
in place for victims”.
4. Restorative justice
• Advocate – Adversary – Skeptic
04
Project Aim & Partners
• Aim: to examine the potential of restorative justice with street
group violence (e.g. riots).
• Partners:
• IARS: a UK-based international think-tank with a
charitable mission to give everyone a chance to build a
safer, fairer and more inclusive society. We do this by
producing evidence-based solutions to current social
problems, sharing best practice and by supporting
young people to shape decision making.
• CRJ: based at SFU, the Centre works in partnership
with the community and the justice system to promote
the practices and values of RJ
• Next steps:
• Full report, pilots? more partners?
05
Project Methodology
06
Summer 2011 - Vancouver
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
299 criminal incidents
43 assaults, 140 injured
89 business affected
113 vehicles damaged
Total cost $5 million CAD
A further $9 million CAD for investigation
5,500 hours of video footage
65,000 tagged people
TOTAL: 508 charges (225 approved)
TOTAL: 1 sentenced
(stats from Integr. Riot Invest. Team, VPBoard
April 2012)
07
Summer 2011 - England
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Started in London – shooting (29 yr old)
12 London areas & 66 England locations
Five continuous days
15,000 actively involved
5 people died
In London 2,175 reported injuries
Hundreds lost homes & businesses
In London 171 residential and 100
commercial building affected
• In London 3,800 claims
• £1 billion cost
Total: 4,000 arrests
1,984 appeared in court
31% received outcome
53% custodial, 36% non-custodial, 11%
acquitted (Oct 2011)
08
Understanding Street Group Violence
Attempting to understand the events
•UK: Independent Riots Communities & Victims Panel (Nov
2011 interim report and March 2012 final report)
•BC: Independent review (Furlong & Keefe, August 2011).
Defining street group violence
•The intentional use of force or power, threatened or actual by
groups of individuals (or by states) within public spaces
•Reasons for “group violence”: social agenda, political violence,
economic violence
•Extant literature (psychology, sociology, criminology,
economics).
09
Understanding Street Group Violence
Defining factor:
It is distinguished from violence that occurs between individuals
(inter-personal) who do not act as part of, or on behalf of, particular
groups. It is different from a collection of acts of individual violence.
I have been involved in most of the most serious riots professionally
from the late 60s to the late 80s. The one striking factor I have noticed is that
there is a moment when the crowd of individuals, often individually violent or
threatening, does change to a riotous mob with an almost concerted joint
action and a loss of individual choice or control. What is the difference
between multiple violent events and the riot phenomenon? When do group
dynamics take over and overpower individual control? Or is the group
dynamic just an opportunity to allow our baser instincts to have free play, and
therefore worthy of harsher penalties? When does individual responsibility
begin and end? (Interviewed practitioner)
10
What is restorative justice?
Restorative Justice is “an ethos with practical goals, among which is
to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect)
encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and
honest dialogue” (Gavrielides 2007: 139).
Restorative Justice Practices:
• Mediation (direct-indirect)
• Family Group Conferencing
• Healing & Sentencing Circles
• Community Restorative Boards
• Canada: Criminal Code ss.718, R v. Gladue and R. v. Proulx
cases “Restoring harmony involves determining sentences that
respond to the needs of the victim, the community, and the
offender” (judge in Proulx case), Youth Criminal Justice Act
11
Cost-benefit analysis
• “RJ can deliver cost savings of up to £9 for every £1 spent”
(Shapland et al 2008).
• “If RJ were offered to all victims of burglary, robbery and violence
against the person where the offender had pleaded guilty (which
would amount to around 75,000 victims), the cost savings to the
criminal justice system - as a result of a reduction in reconviction
rates - would amount to at least £185 million over two years”
(Victim Support/ RJC 2010)
• “RJ practices would likely lead to a net benefit of over £1billion
over ten years” (Matrix Evidence 2009).
In the UK, according to the 2010 House of Commons cross party
Justice Committee, in 2007-8 the average cost of a prison place for
one adult was £39,000 per year. Jailing one young offender costs
as much as £140,000 per year.
12
Understanding restorative justice
Extant literature on:
• The history of restorative justice (rooted in ancient traditions such
as the Greek and Roman civilisations, aboriginal and tribal justice)
(e.g. see Gavrielides 2011; 2012)
• The philosophy of restorative justice (e.g. see Gavrielides 2005)
• The relationship of restorative justice, the rule of law and human
rights especially within the context of constitutional democracy (e.g.
see Gavrielides 2012)
• Definitional ambiguity and tensions within the restorative justice
movement (e.g. Gavrielides 2008).
It exists:
• Within and outside of the criminal justice system
• For public and private law disputes (neighbourhood and family
conflicts, schools, workplace).
•
13
Understanding restorative justice
•
•
•
Violence: inter-personal, group and self-violence
Restorative justice best with inter-personal violence
Group violence in the form of war and genocide (Truth and Reconciliation
Commissions in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, FY, Cambodia, Bosnia &
Herzegovina, South Africa).
•
First RJ case in Elmira, Ontario in 1974 – two young offenders vandalised
22 properties (Mark Yantzi)
Key principles underlying the restorative justice ethos:
• Offender (individual) responsibility
• Victim empowerment and reparation
• Communities of care and trust
• Voluntariness and informed choice
• Future focused (healing and restoration to the degree possible)
• Return “conflicts and property” to individuals and communities
• Sees crime as a “wound in human relationships”
14
How about group violence? Case studies
1. From England (Greater Manchester Probation) is being offered
through the criminal justice system to both adults and juveniles
convicted (less 12 mnts) of riot related offences (post conviction)
2. Two examples from England offered as part of the youth justice
system (post conviction/ sentencing)
3. Example from England identified within the community and was
the outcome of a multi-agency, cross-sector partnership
4. Example of a restorative justice based intervention that was placed
within India’s civil society (Gujarat project)
5. No actual case study in Vancouver – RJ based circle, Christ
Church Cathedral, VARJ – SFU – Downtown Vancouver Business
Improvement Association
6. No actual case study in Greece – however example of an ad hoc
restorative outcome, the case of Kypreos.
15
Key findings
1st Concerns around the factors that drive criminal justice reform. As
the world economic downturn is impacting on criminal justice policy
and practice, the need for an evidence-based approach is apparent. In
going forward with RJ and street group violence, concrete pilots will
need to be run before any safe claims can be made.
2nd Maintaining the ethos of restorative justice: Concern that
principles are being watered down to fit in with funding restrictions
3rd Claims that restorative justice is cheaper must be balanced against
the scant available data. Restorative justice has to convince on two
fronts. First, it must show that it provides better justice for the parties
involved. Second, that while doing so, it places public protection at the
heart of its practices. High profile cases highlighting failures and the
exposition of victims and communities to re-victimisation will quickly
result in investment decrease.
16
Framework for pilots
KEY ELEMENTS
COMMENTS
Within & outside of the CJS
Bottom up, community-based nature of
restorative justice
Complementary/ it can replace punitive
sentencing
Exist within and outside YJS & CJS
Post conviction/ sentencing
Adults & Juvenile offenders
Voluntariness principle
With or without legislation
Voluntary and informed participation of both
parties
A policy must be in place
Processes & Outcomes
Victim awareness – citizenship – encounter
(delivered via multi-agency cross sector
partnerships)
Equally important and measurable
Group accountability
Possible but resource intensive
User-led/ victim-led
Chances of success and better outcomes
Multi-staged intervention
17
Key findings
4th What do victims want?
• Victims not as punitive as originally thought (Sherman & Strang
2007), even in most complex crimes such as hate crime
(Gavrielides 2012): 75-90% victim willingness to meet (65-79% for
offenders) and 70-95 % victim satisfaction
• How about with riots? ICM 2011 poll 94% of 1000 want RJ
18
Key findings
5th Robust evaluation: in-built and includes outcomes, processes
and other targets. Disengage with media and political agendas.
6th Working together: researchers, practitioners and policy
makers.
7th Innovative justice is not cheap justice: the role of the
community sector and the need for long term investment.
8th The role of the user in shaping criminal justice policy and
practice.
9th The world economic crisis creates a positive climate for
restorative justice (see developments in the UK and Europe).
Opportune times change – ask why bring RJ back to the table.
19
Key findings
10th Achieving & prioritising restorative outcomes: Enough
RJ rhetoric! Making RJ concrete and a “real entity” vs. a
“fictitious entity”
“If the fictitious entities we use cannot be so translated,
then they have no real meaning and operate as confusions
and mysteries behind which sinister interests operate to
their own advantages”, John S. Mill
20
Contact details
Dr. Theo Gavrielides
Founder & Director, IARS
159 Clapham Road,
London SW9 0PU, UK.
T.Gavrielides@iars.org.uk
+44 (0)20 7820 0945
@TGavrielides
www.iars.org.uk
@_IARS_
Dr. Gavrielides is also a Visiting Professorial Research Fellow at
Panteion University, a Visiting Professor at Buckinghamshire New
University, a Visiting Senior Research Fellow at Open University and a
Visiting Scholar at Mount Royal University
21