RESTORE: Restorative Justice
for Sexual Violence
Sisco, M., Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J.,
& Carlson, C. (2004, March 4)
RESTORE
1
Project Affiliates

Collaborators: Southern Arizona Center
Against Sexual Assault, the Pima County
Attorney’s Office, the University of Arizona
College of Public Health, and Washington
and Lee School of Law
Funding
Agent: The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (R49CCR921 709-01)
RESTORE
2
Project Goals
Allowing victim-focused intervention
 Creating offender accountability
 Correcting problems in the
traditional response to sex offenses
 Preventing further violence

RESTORE
3
Restorative Justice
Restorative
Justice Interventions
focus on repairing the harm caused
by crime. This harm impacts the
victim and the community.
-Existing applications: Community Courts,
Sentencing Councils, Restitution Programs,
Victim Impact Classes, Community Service.
Fairness: 97% conferenced / 79% traditional (McCold & Wachtel,1998)
Satisfaction: 90% conferenced/ 68% traditional (McGarrel, 2000)
RESTORE
4
THE RESTORE
PROCESSAIM OF
RESTORE
RESTORE
5
RESTORE Eligibility

Both persons must:
– Be fully competent
– Consent to participate
Responsible
person MUST ACKNOWLEDGE
FULL RESPONSIBILITY.
Responsible person must not have:
–been convicted of a felony within statute of
limitations mandated by the state (AZ Statute 13-107)
–committed interpersonal violence; past or present
–used weapons or severe violence in current case
–drugged the victim
RESTORE
6
RESTORE: Overview
Referral
 Preparation
 Conferencing
 Supervision
 Community Accountability
 Outcome

RESTORE
7
Time Line
Consent & Preparation
Conference
Supervision
1-3 months
1 day
RESTORE
12 months
8
Traditional justice problems
1. Low rates of reporting: A recent study found only 2.1%
of rapes reported to the police (Fisher et. al, 2003)
2. Low conviction rate for rape: 9.6% in 2000 in Pima
County (Pima Co. Interagency council, 2001)
3. High rates of recidivism: 39% of rapists reoffended in 25
year period (Prentky et al., 1997)
4. Adversarial process perceived negatively by the victims
with low moral satisfaction (Koss et al., in press)
RESTORE
9
RESTORE vs. Traditional
Crime violates people and
relationships

Crime violates laws and the state
The victim is central to defining
harm

The victim is peripheral to the
process
Repairing social injury is the
focus

One social injury (jail) replaces
another (crime)
Focus on responsibility and
repair

Focus on blame and adversarial
resolution
Community is active

Community is abstractly
represented by state
Punishment encourages
remorse, repairing victim, and
improving offender’s lawabiding resources.

Punishment causes discomfort
and separates from society
RESTORE
10
Research Aims
Aim 1- Theory-driven program
evaluation of RESTORE and develop
a logic model
Aim 2- RESTORE’s impact on system
case processing and recidivisim rate
Aim 3- Outcome evaluation on sexual
violence perpetration
RESTORE
11
Responsibility and Equity for Sexual Transgressions
Offering a Restorative Experience
FOR MORE INFO...
Call (520) 626-9511 or view
http://restoreprogram.publichealth.arizona.edu/
RESTORE
12
Related Documents




Bazemore, G. Principles of Restorative Justice. Presentation:
July 25, 2001.
Fisher, B. S., Daigle, L. E., Cullen, F. T., & Turner, M. G. (2003).
Reporting sexual victimization to the police and others: Results
from a national-level study of college women. Criminal Justice &
Behavior, 30 (1), 6-38.
Frazier, P.A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the
legal system: Police, prosecutor, and victim perspectives. Law
and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.
Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., & Hopkins, C.Q. (2003). Restorative
justice for sexual violence: Repairing victims, building
community, and holding offenders accountable. Annals New
York Academy of Sciences, 989, 384-306.
RESTORE
13
Related Documents (continued)





Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., Hopkins, C.Q., Carlson, C. (2004) Expanding
a Community’s Justice Response to Sex Crimes through Advocacy,
Prosecutorial, and Public Health Collaboration: Introducing the
RESTORE program . (in press).
Koss, M.P., Bachar, K.J., Hopkins, C.Q., Carlson, C. (2004) Justice
responses to sexual assault: Lessons learned and new directions.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence (in press).
McCahill, T.W., Meyer, L.C., & Fischman, A.M. (1979). The aftermath
of rape. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.
McCold, P., & Wachtel, B. (1998). Restorative policing experiment:
The Bethlehem Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing
Project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.
McGarrell, E.F. (2001). Restorative justice conference as an early
response to young offenders (NCJ 187769). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S., Department of
Justice.
RESTORE
14
Related Documents (continued)

McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2002). Restorative justice theory
validation. In E. G. M. Weitekamp & H. J. Kerner (Eds.)
Restorative justice: theoretical foundations (pp. 110-142).
Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
 Pima County Interagency Council. (2001). Report Compiled by
Pima County Attorney’s Office for PCIC. Tucson, AZ.
 Prentky, R.A., Lee, A.F., Knight, R.A., & Cerce, D. (1997).
Recidivism rates among child molesters and rapists: a
methodological analysis. Law and Human Behavior,21, 635659.
RESTORE
15
Related Documents (continued)

Tjaden, P. & Thoennes, N. (1998). Prevalence, incidence,
and consequences of violence against women: Findings
from the National Violence Against Women Survey
(National Institute of Justice Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention Research in Brief, Report

Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Kalanj, B. (1994). Victim
meets offender: The impact of restorative justice and
mediation. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press, Inc.
RESTORE
16