Are Restorative Justice Conferences More Fair Than Criminal Courts? Comparing Levels of Observed Procedural Justice in the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2015
Are Restorative Justice Conferences More Fair Than Criminal Courts? Comparing Levels of Observed Procedural Justice in the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE)
The reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE) were conducted in Canberra, Australia, between 1995 and 2000. RISE compared the effects of standard court proceedings to restorative justice (RJ)–focused diversionary conferences (DCs) with juvenile, young adult, and adult offenders who had been arrested for personal property, shoplifting, violent, or drunk driving offenses. We evaluated, using observational data, the effect of RJ conferences on objective procedural justice. We find that the DCs produced significantly higher levels of offender engagement within the adjudicative process and higher levels of ethical treatment, and that, when compared with standard trials, conduct within the conferences was attuned to the reintegrative shaming (RIS) process. These results reinforce the previous RISE findings by providing evidence that the conferencing process, as delivered, was in keeping with the overall goals of RJ and supports the prior attribution of RISE’s effectiveness to the RJ process.
AhmedE.HarrisN.BraithwaiteJ.BraithwaiteV. (2001). Shame management through reintegration, Cambridge studies in criminology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
2.
AngelC. M.ShermanL. W.StrangH.ArielB.BennettS.InkpenN.. . . RichmondT. S. (2013). Effects of restorative justice conferences on post-traumatic stress symptoms among robbery and burglary victims: A randomized controlled trial. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
BarnesG. C. (1999). Procedural justice in two contexts: Testing the fairness of diversionary conferencing for intoxicated drivers (PhD dissertation). University of Maryland, College Park.
4.
BazemoreG. (1994). Developing a victim orientation for community corrections: A restorative justice paradigm and a balanced mission. Perspectives, 18, 19-24.
5.
BoruchR. F. (1997). Randomized experiments for planning and evaluation: A practical guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
6.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BraithwaiteJ. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1-127.
8.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally College Publishing.
9.
CasperJ. D.TylerT.FisherB. (1988). Procedural justice among felony defendants. Law & Society Review, 22, 483-507.
10.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
11.
CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
12.
DalyK. (2000). Mind the gap: Restorative justice in theory and practice. In von HirschA.RobertsJ.BottomsA. E.RoachK.SchiffM. (Eds.), Restorative justice and criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms?Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 33-54.
13.
DalyK.HayesH. (2001). Restorative justice and conferencing in Australia. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.
14.
FischerR.HarbC.Al-SarrafS.NashabeO. (2008). Support for resistance among Iraqi students: An exploratory study. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 30(2), 167-175.
15.
FultonB.LevrantS.CullenF. T.WozniakJ. F. (1999). Reconsidering restorative justice: The corruption of benevolence revisited?Crime & Delinquency, 45, 3-27.
16.
GarveyS. P. (2003). Restorative justice, punishment and atonement. Utah Law Review, 2003, 303-319.
17.
HarrisN.(2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame, and criminal justice. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 327-346.
18.
HarrisN.BurtonJ. B. (1997). The reliability of observed reintegrative shaming, shame, defiance, and other key concepts in diversionary conferences. Canberra, Australia: Australian National University.
19.
HarrisN.BurtonJ. B. (1998). Testing the reliability of observational measures of reintegrative shaming at community accountability conferences and at court. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 31, 230-241.
KimH. J.GerberJ. (2010). Evaluating the process of a restorative justice conference: An examination of factors that lead to reintegrative shaming. Asia Pacific Journal of Police & Criminal Justice, 8, 1-19.
22.
LeventhalG. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In GergenK. J.GreenbergM. S.WillisR. H. (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research. New York, NY: Plenum Press, 27-55.
23.
MakkaiT.BraithwaiteJ. (1996). Procedural justice and regulatory compliance. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 83-98.
24.
MazerolleL.BennettS.DavisJ.SargeantE.ManningM. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 245-274.
25.
McColdP.WachtelT. (2001). Restorative justice theory validation. Unpublished manuscript, Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices.
26.
MorrisA. (2002). Critiquing the critics: A brief response to critics of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 596-615.
27.
PaternosterR.BrameR.BachmanR.ShermanL. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law & Society Review, 31, 163-204.
28.
PaternosterR.IovanniL. (1989). The labeling perspective and delinquency: An elaboration of the theory and assessment of the evidence. Justice Quarterly, 6, 359-394.
29.
ReisigM. D.BrattonJ.GertzM. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.
30.
RossnerM. (2011). Emotions and interaction ritual: A micro-analysis of restorative justice. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 95-119.
31.
SchiffM. (2003). ‘Models, Challenges and the Promise of Restorative Conferencing Strategies’. In von HirschA.RobertsJ.BottomsA. E.RoachK.SchiffM. (Eds,), Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice: Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms?Oxford: Hart Publishing, 315-338.
32.
ShaplandJ.AtkinsonA.AtkinsonH.ChapmanB.DignanJ.HowesM.. . . SorsbyA. (2007). Restorative justice: The views of victims and offenders (Ministry of Justice Research Series 3). London,UK: Ministry of Justice.
33.
SheppardB. H. (1985). Justice is not a simple matter: The case for elaborating our model of procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 953-962.
34.
ShermanL. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 30, 445-473.
35.
ShermanL. W.StrangH. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. London, England: Smith Institute.
36.
ShermanL. W.StrangH. (2012). Restorative justice as evidence-based sentencing. In PetersiliaJ.ReitzK. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of sentencing and corrections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 214-246.
37.
ShermanL. W.StrangH.BarnesG. C.BraithwaiteJ.InkpenN.TehM. M. (1998). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia: Australian Federal Police and Australian National University.
38.
ShermanL.W.StrangHWoodsD. (2000). Recidivism Patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (Rise). Canberra, Australia: Centre for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University.
39.
StrangHBarnesG.CBraithwaiteJShermanL.W. (1999). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia: Law Program, Research School of Social Sciences, Institute of Advanced Studies, Australian National University.
40.
StrangH. (2002). Repair or revenge: Victims and restorative justice. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
41.
StrangH.BraithwaiteJ. (Eds.). (2000). Restorative justice: Philosophy to practice. Dartmouth: Ashgate.
42.
StrangH.ShermanL.W.WoodsD.BarnesG. C. (2011). Experiments in restorative policing: Final report on the Canberra reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE). Canberra, Australia: Australian Federal Police and Australian National University.
43.
ThibautJ.WalkerL. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
TylerT. R. (1988). What is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures. Law and Society Review, 22(1), 103-135.
45.
TylerT. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
46.
TylerT. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35, 117-125.
47.
TylerT. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283-357.
48.
TylerT.R.WakslakC.J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy:Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253-282.
49.
TylerT. R. (2006a). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.
50.
TylerT. R. (2006b). Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule breaking. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 307-326.
51.
TylerT. R.ShermanL. W.StrangH.BarnesG. C.WoodsD. J. (2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanisms in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law & Society Review, 41, 553-585.
52.
ZehrH.MikaH. (1998). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 47-56.
