Guest editorial

Citation

Smyth, G. (2015), "Guest editorial", Safer Communities, Vol. 14 No. 3. https://doi.org/10.1108/SC-07-2015-0026

Guest editorial

Article Type: Guest editorial From: Safer Communities, Volume 14, Issue 3

This Special Issue of Safer Communities, guest edited by Gareth Jones, Chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers and myself, is concerned with restorative justice (RJ). We consider its application in a number of specific contexts, and some related theoretical and practical issues.

To do so now is certainly opportune. RJ has been (or so has been the intention) a key component of our youth justice system for the last 15 years, with the government setting out plans to develop ‘a more strategic and coherent approach to the use of restorative justice in England and Wales’ across the whole criminal justice system (HM Government, 2014) (note: this strategy was drawn up by the Coalition Government but remains part of the agenda of the new Conservative administration). An example is the piloting of RJ prior to sentence in a number of crown courts (see Jones and Creaney, 2015). Meanwhile, the implementation of a Restorative Justice Quality Mark to promote the use of restorative justice in a consistent and high quality fashion has recently received the endorsement of the Ministry of Justice (Restorative Justice Council, 2014).

The appeal of RJ is understandable. It purports to offer a way of resolving problems which directly involves the parties affected and which according to a number of studies, is capable of leaving all satisfied and better off as a result, while at the same time reducing re-offending (see e.g. Strang et al., 2013; Shapland et al., 2008; Sherman and Strang, 2007).

On the face of it, RJ is a simple idea, originating in (largely) long gone, simpler societies; bringing together the instigator and sufferer of harm to resolve an issue/problem between them, rather than forcing them through the complex mechanisms of modern criminal justice. Yet this simplicity is deceptive: a range of complications need to be taken into account in the delivery of RJ, particularly in the context of adversarial British justice systems which are set up precisely to take matters out of the hands of those directly affected. Poorly managed, RJ is capable of adding to the harm experienced by the parties involved, or at any rate such implementation can tarnish the perception of RJ and hence undermine the scope for its continuing positive application.

Nor should it be taken lightly by any party to it. A letter to Insidetime, the national newspaper for prisoners and detainees, from a convicted sex offender makes this point. Stressing that RJ must be victim-led, Stephen Gale (2015, p. 6) states that:

[…] restorative justice is not an “easy fix”; it breaks your heart and makes you detest yourself. It takes years to get to a point where you feel that you are becoming a good person again.

Some of the situations in which RJ is now being applied involve a range of considerations not all of them mutually complementary. Particular dilemmas arise for criminal justice organisations given responsibility for dealing with both victims and offenders. Youth offending services for example have, since their advent in 2000, been expected to work restoratively in their efforts to “reduce offending by children and young people” (Crime and Disorder Act, 1998, s.37). Depending on how this work is organised, there is a potential conflict of interest here, with the attendant risk that victims can be put under undue pressure to participate on the basis of potential benefits to offenders (exacerbated under the highly target-driven regime of the early days of the new youth justice system); or on the other hand that the various demands associated with work with the offender relegate victim concerns to a position too low on the priority list to ever be taken up - seen as an add-on, rather than part and parcel of the central task. The culture as well as the processes have to be right to ensure a truly restorative focus.

Adoption of restorative techniques in recent years by the police has raised similar issues for them as highlighted in the paper by Ellie Acton. The delivery of RJ by trained police officers as an alternative to prosecution by young, relatively minor offenders has played its part in significantly reducing the numbers of young people unnecessarily caught up in the criminal justice system, whilst providing some of them with valuable lessons. However, as Acton shows, it has been used by some officers as a way out of the time-consuming bureaucracy which goes with taking a case to court; youth offending service practitioners report that some young people in such cases have been blissfully unaware of having received a restorative disposal, or any disposal at all. Such practice brings RJ into disrepute, as does the “postcode lottery” aspect of police RJ which is Acton’s central theme. The very fact that RJ requires agreement from both parties to go ahead means that it will never be universally applicable. However, as Acton argues, there needs to be a consistent framework in which it is offered for it to be genuinely just.

Other complications arise in those cases in which the formal criminal justice system is invoked. Initiating RJ with an offender who is already serving his or her sentence, whether in custody or the community is one thing; doing so with someone who is awaiting sentence, as in the current Crown Court pre-sentence RJ pilots is quite another. Potentially it offers the opportunity to bring offenders into the restorative fold, from which all parties stand to gain; but it can also be seen as inviting unmotivated offenders to play the system, resulting in spurious restorative interventions in which victims may be exploited for the benefit of offenders. In their paper, Gareth Jones and Sean Creaney assess the ethics and potential value of this initiative, whilst also exploring the delivery of RJ within our youth justice system.

Phil Edwards’ conceptual article explores in more detail the complexities of how and where RJ can be fitted in to or alongside our criminal justice system. In doing so he raises important questions about how it achieves impact and who benefits, laying much stress on the interdependence of victim and offender in the process.

His consideration of the “how” question includes some thoughts on the mechanisms by which RJ can contribute to desistance from offending.

Desistance, alongside RJ, is one of the key ideas to have been explored in criminology in recent years, and the relationship between the two is further considered in Rachel Horan’s timely paper which considers in some detail the psychological processes involved. Like Edwards, she stresses an interplay, but in this instance she is looking at how successful RJ, and desistance, is supported by the accumulation of mutually beneficial social and personal capital.

Finally, Paul Gavin’s paper illustrates the increasing influence of RJ internationally by tracing its “slow and steady” development in Ireland. Competing policy imperatives facing governments are discussed. It is interesting to note Gavin’s identification of the necessity to overcome a penal populism which threatened to hold back the expansion of RJ before it could begin to take hold there. Similar considerations have played a part in the dilution of previous British Government plans to further develop RJ in the UK (as witness the inaction which followed New Labour’s consultation in 2003 on a strategy on RJ from which they envisaged “a growing role for restorative approaches in tackling crime and strengthening society” (Home Office, 2003, p. 5)). It remains to be seen how the present Government will take forward the stated policy of its coalition predecessor to “make [victim-centred] Restorative Justice available at all stages of the Criminal Justice System” (MoJ, 2013, p. 18).

There is, of course another ever-present imperative in all current Government policy and initiatives: that of saving money. RJ is often touted as a cheaper alternative to conventional criminal justice, but this can be deceptive. It is no doubt cheaper to run than the panoply of courts, prisons and other criminal justice institutions, but except in limited circumstances, is not going to be replacing these but will run alongside or within them. When done properly, with full assessment, preparation and support for the parties involved, it is more, not less, intensive than many conventional interventions.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the matter of finance is alluded to in four of our five papers: Gavin notes that the emergence of RJ in Ireland has occurred “amidst austerity”; the pieces by Edwards and by Jones and Creaney both refer to potential attractions of RJ as a low cost option; and significantly Acton relates how police RJ has continued in the face of austerity, albeit with less investment to ensure its proper delivery.

This must be the concern. The articles contained within this journal demonstrate the point that RJ is not the simple concept it might at first appear to be. Both establishing RJ, and then maintaining and further developing it in a criminal justice context which runs against so many of its key principles is no easy matter. Its continuing development needs to be informed by the constant reminder that it should be done properly or not at all. RJ should be taken forward because it is worth doing, and not simply to make financial savings. It is hoped that the papers presented within this special edition of Safer Communities will prompt thought and discussion as to the ways in which this may be done - and the value of doing so.

Graham Smyth

Graham Smyth is Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the Department of Sociology, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK.

References

Crime and Disorder Act (1998), c.37, Stationary Office, London

Gale, S. (2015), “Restorative justice revisited [‘Mailbag’]”, Insidetime, March, p. 6

HM Government (2014), “Restorative justice action plan: 2014”, 17 November, available at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/restorative-justice-action-plan-2014 (accessed 25 June 2015)

Home Office (2003), “Restorative justice: the government’s strategy. A consultation document on the government’s strategy on restorative justice”, Home Office, London, July

Jones, G. and Creaney, S. (2015), “Incentive for insincerity- pre sentence restorative justice: in whose interests?”, Safer Communities, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 126-136

Restorative Justice Council (2014), “Launched today: the restorative service quality Mark”, 29 January, available at: http://restorativejustice.org.uk/news/launched-today-restorative-service-quality-mark (accessed 25 June 2015)

Shapland, J., Atkinson, A., Atkinson, A., Dignan, J., Edwards, L., Hibbert, J., Howes, M., Johnstone, J., Robinson, G. and Sorsby, A. (2008), Does Restorative Justice Affect Reconviction?, MoJ, London, available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.justice.gov.uk/restorative-justicereport_06-08.pdf

Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007), Restorative Justice: The Evidence, Smith Institute, London, available at: www.smith-institute.org.uk/publications.html?search=restorative+justice&category&_id=

Strang, H., Sherman, L., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D. and Ariel, B. (2013), “Restorative Justice Conferencing (RJC) using face-to-face meetings of offenders and Victims: effects on offender recidivism and victim satisfaction. A systematic review”, Campbell Systematic Reviews, available at: www.campbellcollaboration. org/lib/project/63/

About the Guest Editors

Graham Smyth is a Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the Manchester Metropolitan University. His teaching/research interests there are centred on work with people who have offended, and on youth justice. He is also involved in the delivery of the Probation Qualification Framework. He has previously worked in probation, youth justice and community safety. Graham Smyth can be contacted at: mailto:g.smyth@mmu.ac.uk

Gareth Jones is the Chair of the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers (AYM), the professional group representing more than 100 of the 134 Youth Offending Teams across England, and the Head of Service Cheshire West, Halton and Warrington Youth Offending Service. Gareth has over 30 years’ experience of working in the Criminal Justice system, within the voluntary sector, for the Probation Service and for youth offending services Manchester and in Lancashire before his present role with one of the largest YOS’ in the country. He has also become an Adviser for a new organisation which promotes the voice and interests of children in the Youth Justice system and/or Care system – “Peer Power”.