Dissertation by Roksana Galuba, Criminology MSc, Winchester University

An exploration of restorative justice practices for domestic abuse victims in the United States of America and Canada with a series of recommendations on how these practices can aid the United Kingdom in implementing restorative justice for domestic abuse victims.

By Roksana Galuba

Supervisor: Vincenzo Scalia Word Count: 10,720

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Criminology at The University of Winchester 2018

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Declaration A formal declaration reinforcing the status of this piece of work as original, containing material from other individuals while being correctly referenced in the Harvard style of referencing.

Roksana Galuba 03/09/2018

2

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Content Page Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………4 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….5 Chapter 1…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….8 1.1 – Restorative Justice ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…..8 1.1.1 – Victims…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..9 1.1.2 – Offenders……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………11 1.1.3 – Community…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..13 1.2 – Restorative Justice and Domestic Abuse………………………………………………………………….………….14 Chapter 2…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………..20 2.1 – Restorative Justice for Domestic Abuse Victims in the United Kingdom……………….………….….20 2.1.1 – Government…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………...21 2.1.2 – Original Data…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 Chapter 3………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28 3.1 – Canada…..………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….28 3.1.1 – Sentencing Circles…………………………………………………………………………………………………………..28 3.1.2 – Family Group Conferencing (FGC)…………………………………………………………………………………..31 3.2 – USA………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..32 3.2.1 – Victim Offender Mediation/Dialogue (VOM/VOD)………………………………………………….………32 3.2.2 – North Carolina………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….35 Chapter 4………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…….37 4.1 – Recommendations……………………………………………………………………………………………………….……37 4.1.1 – VOD/VOM………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………37 4.1.2 – Safety Conferencing (North Carolina)…………………………………………………………………………….39 4.1.3 – Family Group Conferencing……………………………………………………………………………………………40 4.1.4 – Sentencing Circles………………………………………………………………………………………………………….41 Chapter 5……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….42 5.1 – Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..42 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..………44

3

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Abstract An exploration of applicability of restorative justice to domestic abuse victims in the United Kingdom; through an analysis of restorative justice practices available to domestic abuse victims in the United States of America and Canada. With a set of recommendations aimed at the Government and appropriate bodies, being the final result of this dissertation.

4

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Introduction This dissertation aims to address the issue of domestic violence in the United Kingdom, by implementing the practices of restorative justice; by drawing recommendations from existing programmes in the United States of America (USA) and Canada. Restorative justice (RJ) has been a present feature in societies for many decades; once being the predominant response to crime in most societies (Braithwaite, 1998). Focusing on limiting future harm, simultaneously repairing past harm done, rather than focusing on inflicting an equal measure of pain onto the offender. RJ was the predominant form of English justice until King Henry II ascended to the throne in 1180 (Schafer, 1968). RJ disappeared elsewhere in Western Europe around the same time (Weitekamp, 1999), to be followed by a rise in punishment for actions, in shapes of torture, death (in various ways), enslavement, banishment or incarceration. Nils Christie suggested that ‘kings ‘stole’ crimes from victims long before kings could offer much protection in return’ (1977); which translates to a prominent issue in current society, where many victims are neglected party in their cases (Sebba, 1996), and have their needs and wants ignored by the criminal justice systems, due to those benefits not being suitable for the current system, which will be further discussed in this dissertation. The principles and application of RJ revolve around voluntariness, truth telling and face-to-face meetings involving the offender and the victim (Llewellyn and Howse, 1998).

Conjointly, in the process of restoring relationships, the community has an opportunity to heal also, through the reintegration of victims and offenders (Llewellyn and Howse, 1998); combining the three key stakeholders, the victim, the offender and the community, is the key principle for full restoration to occur. The benefits of RJ have been apparent for many years, with recent evidence suggesting that majority of victims chose to participate in face-to-face meetings, when offered the chance (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018). 85% of victims who took part were satisfied with the

5

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

process (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018), furthermore, restorative justice has reduced the frequency of reoffending by 14% (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018), leading to a ÂŁ8 saving for the criminal justice system, for every ÂŁ1 spend on RJ (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018). Moreover, a report by Restorative Justice Council and Victim Support, showcased that providing restorative justice in 70,000 cases, can lead to a ÂŁ185 million saving to the criminal justice system in the period of two years (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018). Despite the success of restorative justice, there has been a reluctance to apply the practise to domestic violence in the United Kingdom, and the rest of the world. Domestic violence remains an increasing issue in the United Kingdom, with a total of 1,068,020 domestic abuse related incidents and crimes (Cottrill, 2017) recorded by police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2017 (Cottrill, 2017); out of which 54% remained incidents and were not recorded as a crime (Cottrill, 2017). Domestic violence remains a crime significantly under-reported with 4 in 5 victims (79%) of partner abuse, not reporting incidents to the police (Office for National Statistics, 2017), therefore the real number of victims will never be known. However, there have been pilots of restorative justice practices for domestic abuse victims in the United Kingdom, with the overall aim of establishing impact upon bringing offenders to justice, reducing reoffending, reducing costs and increasing victims satisfaction (Farmer and Callan, 2012), although the practise has not been implemented many institutes in the United Kingdom, with some even banning such practise due to issues, which will be discussed further on. This dissertation will explore the attitudes towards domestic violence by the government and societies, with a significant evidence of safe applicability of restorative justice to cases of domestic abuse as portrayed by successful programmes around the world. Concerns with regard to safety and revictimisation will be addressed throughout the sections of this piece, while addressing the issue of de-criminalisation of domestic violence, as a result of application of restorative justice. Programmes in Canada and the USA, are analysed and critiqued with regard to concerns of the use of restorative 6

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

justice for domestic abuse victims, in the aim of identifying the advantages and disadvantages of these programmes; simultaneously creating a new scheme based on the needs of United Kingdom society, concerns raised by government and victims support groups, and successes of programmes occurring in the USA and Canada. A series of detailed recommendations for the United Kingdom government, the police and police and crime commissioners will be issued within this dissertation; conjointly a presentation will be given to the Police and Crime Commissioner for Hampshire office, to aid in the development of a programme for domestic abuse victims, involving restorative justice practices; with further applicability to other areas of the United Kingdom.

7

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Chapter 1

1.1 Restorative Justice Restorative justice (RJ) was first discussed in the 1970’s by Barnett (1977) and Eglash (1977), in the context of restitution. However, it wasn’t applied into criminology until the works from Braithwaite (1989), Marshall (1985), Umbreit (1994b) and Zehr (1990). These social scientists focused on restorative justice being a third option, an option which does not revolve around the rehabilitation versus retribution debate (Zehr, 1990). Restorative justice focuses on the fact that a crime is a violation of people and relationships, rather than just a violation of the law (Zehr, 1990). Therefore, the most appropriate response to any crime, is fixing the harm caused, along with punishment for the offender (Law Commission, 2000); rather than only focus on the latter, and leaving victims and communities still affected by the offence. In this section a discussion surrounding principles of restorative justice as well as application will occur. Furthermore, a comparison of victims, offenders and community needs and treatment they receive will be explored.

Focus on using restorative justice as a solution for criminal action has returned after decades of relying on prisons; which first occurred in Ancient Egypt. (Ancient Facts, 2018). In the 1990’s restorative justice expanded to include communities as one of the stakeholders in conferences, and essential for successful completion of the programme (McCord, 2003). Essentially, restorative justice is a collaborative process, involving those directly affected by a crime, these circles are called primary stakeholders; these consist of the offender, victim, and the community/families. The process relies on voluntary participation of each of the stakeholders, otherwise full restoration cannot occur. This approach involves high control and high support, confrontation and disapproval

8

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

of wrongdoing while not degrading the offender. This provides an opportunity for those most affected by the incident to share their feelings, describe how they were affected and together develop a strategy of moving on and forward; combined with how to repair the harm done or/and prevent reoccurrence of this situation. It is probable that many victims may be shocked at the prospect of facing their perpetrator again when the opportunity is first offered to them, especially if the crime involved violence (Strang, 2003). However, 85% of victims who took part were satisfied with the process (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018). Research has shown that restorative justice is more effective in reducing violent crimes than property crimes (Sherman et al, 1997), this is due to the higher emotional engagement by the victim and offenders in these criminal encounters, that create emotions of empathy and remorse which are essential in reducing reoffending. This analysis has led to further exploration of the potential for restorative justice in serious violent crimes (Strang, 2003).

1.1.1 Victims The most prevalent issue experienced by victims of crime is the abandonment of victims’ interests by the jurisprudence of retribution (Strang, 2003), they are neglected in the criminal justice process, with neither their needs or preferences being taken into account by the system. Doreen McBarnett claims that ‘the state is not just the arbiter in trial between victims and offenders; the state is the victims… If victims feel that nobody cares about their suffering, it is in part because institutionally nobody does.’(1983). It is that failure that contributes to the growing feeling that victims are angry and seek revenge due to being side-tracked in criminal proceedings (Zedner, 2002); however, many surveys have repeatedly found that most victims do not have those feeling (Strang, 2003). Many are unhappy about the lack of a legitimate role for victims in the process, beyond that of a witness for 9

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

the prosecution (Shapland, 1985), the non-existent opportunity to discuss the process of their case (Maguire, 1982), the further decreasing recognition of the emotional and material harm they have experienced (Strang, 2003) and the lack of fairness and respect they receive at the hands of the criminal system as a whole (Shapland, 1985). With the biggest issue being the lack of contact with authorities with regard to the progress of their case (Boyle, 1999). Joanna Shapland has reinforced that ‘the rule was: the more the contact with criminal justice authorities, the greater the satisfaction’(1985). Studies have reinforced that by making the victim participate in their case, it aids in their emotional recovery and in reducing the sense of alienation they may experience (Erez and Tontodonato, 1990). From the victim’s perspective the criminal system fails due to the fact that it treats similar crimes in the same way, without considering the differential impact those crimes may have on those involved (Strang, 2003).

Evidence suggests that victims see emotional reconciliation to be far more important than material or financial reparation (Umbreit et al, 1994), unfortunately today’ system focuses on economic reparations, rather than emotional recovery, which further contributes to the growing debt, as many offenders are unable to make the payments to the victims; their economic status is often the reason why they turn to crime. The experience of forgiveness, is believed to be the factor which mostly assists victims in recovery from their victimization (Zehr, 1985), allowing them to move on from the incident. Everything described as a need for victims to recover in the above section, is offered by restorative justice; furthermore, restorative justice is not an alternative to incarceration, and therefore the state gets to enforce the law of the land and be satisfied as well. Restorative justice, is often the only route which supplies what they require, without preventing the course of justice and punishment to be delivered.

10

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

1.1.2 Offenders Punishment has become a priority in many countries around the world, with the business of private prisons growing significantly every year in the USA, with television shows such as Orange Is The New Black, or Toughest Prisons in the World widely available to the public; the conversation regarding prison and incarceration is inescapable. However, it has become apparent that a retributive criminal justice system built primarily on a philosophy of vengeance and punishment does not produce fairness, either to the victim or the offender (Consedine, 2003). The failure rates of the retributive prison systems around the world, amounts to between 60-80% reoffending rates in most countries within two years of release (Consedine, 2003). Prisons aid in creating more crime by bonding similarly minded members of the society, often allowing them to communicate with individuals responsible for more serious crime, allowing them to improve their criminal skills, learn new trades and techniques. Prisons breed violence and are the prime location for gang recruitment (Consedine, 2003). This section will focus on the offenders, and what they can gain through the use of restorative justice.

‘Each year jails take large numbers of hopeless people and turn them into bitter hopeless people’ (Time, 1993), despite this being a front cover of the Time 25 years ago, this still remain a significant issue around the world. Prisons were not designed for restoration and rehabilitation, but rather for punishment and pain. There is one system of punishment, for individuals responsible for crimes ranging from theft to murder. There are varying levels of security in prisons, however the principal aim is consistent throughout, to punish, to strip of individual identity and to deny individual freedoms. Offenders general approach towards a system is that once the punishment is done, there is no more to worry about; ‘I’ve done my time’ eliminates their need to discuss their crimes further (Consedine, 2003). The real issue is that prisons often don’t offer what the offender, victim or the

11

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

community needs. Resulting in the offender returning to an unchanged environment, which caused them to offend in the first place.

Restorative justice is a philosophy that embraces a wide range of human emotions, including: healing, compassion, forgiveness, mercy, reconciliation as well as sanctions when appropriate; those aren’t offered in prisons, and often the offender won’t ever acknowledge the extent of harm their crimes caused (Consedine, 2003). Instead of focusing on how the offender should be punished, restorative justice shifts focus on how the damage can be repaired. Beginning with the acknowledgment from the offender of their responsibility for the crime committed and expression of honest regret; only then, not only the offender but everyone involved can being the process of restoration and moving on; offering healing to all those involved. Offenders with multiple crimes or prior convictions have met with victims and apologised for their actions, with benefits for themselves (redemption), as well as the victims who have experienced reduction in PTSD (Sherman and Strang, 2007). Those individuals who had court assigned restorative justice conferences, declared that 72% had their offenders apologise to them, compared to only 19% of those who did not partake in restorative justice (Sherman et al, 2005; Strang, 2002). Marshall found that offenders are more affected by the experience of restorative justice than by formal prosecution and punishment; through restorative justice the offender feels that the society is ready to offer reacceptance, further motivating the individual to change (1985). Further studies confirmed that those offenders who took part in restorative justice reported a positive influence on their views on offending (Justiceinspectorates.gov.uk, 2018). Further reinforcing the positives of the system, compared to the results of incarceration only, where many offenders remain unchanged after serving their time, which is evident by the reoffending rates- 46% of all prisoners will re-offend within a year, and 60% of short sentenced prisoners, will reoffend within the same period (Cameron, 2016).

12

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

1.1.3 Community Restorative Justice places the community as one of the primary stakeholders within its programme, as an aid to make reintegration a reality, once all parties put the hurt behind them, and move on (Marshall, 1987). It also recognises that crime causes damage to the community, and the offender needs to take responsibility for the harm caused to all, not just the victim. Over years, it has become apparent that the needs of the community, offender and victim are not independent, and that justice agencies had to engage actively with them all, to make any impact (Marshall, 1987).

Restorative justices, offers an opportunity for the community to be involved in the events happening on their doorstep, as well as be in a position to make changes, and improve; something traditional litigation and incarceration does not offer, which results in a broken community, with no aids offered by the government or the justice system.

A significant issue of voluntary participation, is that it involves individual desire to participate in the programme, rather than a court order etc. This means that the level of participation cannot be assumed but must be hoped for. Social divisions within societies/communities will aid in the reduced involvements; which in turn reduces the probability of successful full restoration. Although this barrier is present in any crime-control system, and visible benefits of restorative justice are seen in the lives of both the victims and offenders, therefore pursuing restorative justice is not wasteful. Community stakeholders may be the families of the offender and friends, rather than just the individuals who live in a close proximity of the offender or the victim; who are able through conferences to share blame and directly witness the harm caused. Furthermore, offer help in how the offender can make reparations and change their behaviour for the future. The process of shaming is based on the ideas of John Braithwaite (1989), which intends for reintegration to occur.

13

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Braithwaite argues that shaming is only effective if done by a group of individuals the offender respected and was attached too (Braithwaite, 1989). Without restorative justice, many family and friends tend to avoid conversations surrounding the topic of the offence with the culprit, due to fear of aggravation or even violence; resulting in many accepting that the offence is irrelevant due to time being completed through incarceration.

Restorative justice emphasises community responsibility, it recognises that we all form one big earth family and must learn to live in harmony; understanding that we have responsibility not only for ourselves, but towards one another. It is deemed one of the greatest weaknesses of the western judicial system, that the focus is on an individual rather than a group of individuals affected by the crime (Consedine, 2003). Leaving many individuals unsatisfied, hurt and unable to get help, as they are not deemed either the offender or a direct victim of the crime; but they remain feeling the effects of the crime. Therefore, restorative justice offers every single stakeholder what the current system is not delivering; conjoined with incarceration, restorative justice is the answer to perfect solution in aiding recovery for the offender, victim and the community, as analysed in the above sections; and therefore, should be further applied to domestic violence victims.

1.2 Restorative Justice and Domestic Abuse Restorative justice solutions as a means of restoration for domestic abuse or family violence victims, has been a present tool in many countries around the world for years; such as USA and Canada etc. Unfortunately, such option is not readily available to victims in the United Kingdom.

However, there has been a shift in attitudes in the government, for the applicability of restorative justice to victims of these crimes. Minister of Justice, Sam Gymiah, has declared that ‘there can be a place for restorative justice in domestic abuse cases alongside prosecution.’(Gyimah, 2017). This 14

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

section will focus on discussing the realities of the application of restorative justice to family violence, as well as look at the studies and research supporting the application. Furthermore, also addressing major issue and critiques of the scheme, and providing supporting evidence in tackling the issues and critiques.

Over decades there has been many studies carried out with regard to restorative justice applicability to domestic violence, one of the notable studies was carried out by Gale Burford and Joan Pennell; they found a significant reduction in both child abuse/neglect and abuse of mothers/partners after the intervention occurred; these interventions were modelled on the principles of restorative justice. Incidents of violence halved for the 32 families involved in the interventions, and for the remaining 31 control families, the incidents increased significantly.

Another positive outcome was a reduction in drinking problems after the interventions in the 32 families (Burford and Pennell, 1998). Although there have been many critiques due to the small sample size of the study, in retrospect, for those times where domestic violence was shunned as a private matter, and a subject one would not dare to talk about at all. The sample was a statistically persuasive study in demonstrating that an intervention can result in a reduction of family violence (Stang and Braithwaite, 2002). The main issue with domestic violence is that it is not a unitary phenomenon, it involves varying levels of violence, varying levels of frequency and persistence, as well as varied interpersonal and structural dynamics. Therefore, there is not a box a single case of domestic violence can be placed in, as every case will have varying degrees of factors present, which cannot be analysed separately, but only as a whole. There is a lot of support for family violence being subjected to restorative justice, with example such as Hollow Water (Laieunesse, 1993; Ross, 1996; Bushie, 1999), where the community adopted the principles of restorative justice in tackling issues such as sexual abuse, domestic violence etc. Although these emphasise the

15

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

necessity for victims’ circles and offender circles to be separated, until cycles of denial and intimidation are broken; only then restoration and healing can begin.

The cultural shift to make personal-political; has been a consistent theme in pushing for restorative justice for domestic abuse victims. The movement of the 1960’s which adopted this philosophy, focuses on bursting the bubble surrounding family violence as a private matter, leaving the victims suffering in silence for years, as well as making the connections between personal experience and larger social and political structures more intertwined. There is a significant emphasise on making communities aware of what is happening in their area, and working together towards changing the practices and attitudes towards domestic abuse. Stubbs reinforces the need for social control nets to widen with regard to domestic violence; highlighting that domestic violence is one of the crimes where legal nets and nets of the communities involved must be strengthen and widen, to appropriately tackle the issue (2007). The privatisation of these issues according to Braithwaite (1995) analysis leads to making these problems our biggest crime issues. Therefore, the movement of making personal-political is a significant stepping stone in unravelling the extent of the real issue of domestic abuse. Furthermore, the women’s movements such as Women’s Liberation Movement in the UK, that has contributed to making domestic violence less private, by instigating reform and change; one of the notable changes towards highlighting the harms of domestic abuse was the introduction of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. This Act enabled married women to get a court order against their husband, without separational or divorce proceedings; allowing the victim to stay in their home, regardless if she owned it or not (The British Library, 2018).

A significant bias towards females being victims rather than perpetrators has reduced in the recent years, with more males being confident enough to talk about their experiences as victims, although

16

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

a stigma is still associated with males being less masculine if they are victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault or have mental health issues. Many fear that they will not be believed or listened too, or that police will not take any action, and they will have to return to the abuser (Drijber, Reijnders and Ceelen, 2012). Kathleen Daly, emphasises the difficulties in ‘doing justice’ in an unequal society, along with showing the victims respect, by treating their experiences as serious, without relying on over-harsh forms of punishment (2002). Furthermore, the issue surrounding gendered crimes, is the need to for them to be considered concretely, rather than abstractly, in deciding how to take them seriously, to denounce them, rather than excuse them in a way that vindicates the suffering and dignity of the victims and that keeps open the possibility of healing.

Morris highlights that the use of restorative justice for men’s violence victims, against their perpetrators would not mean a decriminalisation of the crime, as many have feared (2002). ‘The criminal law remains a signifier and denouncer’(Braithwaite, 1980) however Morris believes ‘that the abuser’s family and friends are by far the more potent agents to achieve this objective of denunciation’(Morris, 2002); therefore, restorative justice alongside prosecution appears to be the best option for all those involved and is in tune with the proposals from the Minister of Justice.

Drummond (1999) reinforces the need for a relationship between the justice system and restorative justice, by emphasising that restorative justice may enable healing to lead to justice.

Hudson (2002) and Stubbs (2007) agree that restorative justice can be hybridized with the criminal justice system.

Another criticism of restorative justice for domestic abuse victims is the need for a face-to-face interaction between the victim and the offender, along with a reconciliation between parties which is not appropriate for the power imbalance present in family violence cases. However, the underlying aims of restorative justice are much broader than the face-to-face meetings associated with them. The primary goals of the face-to-face meetings are goals suitable to family violence 17

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

crime but may require different strategies or different emphasise in using a particular strategy (Bazemore and Earle, 2002); Stubbs (2007) suggests that a generic restorative justice practice cannot be applied to domestic abuse victims. However, a significant common ground is apparent between the efforts to reduce family violence and the restorative justice movement. Both address the need for a clear acknowledgement of wrongdoing by the offender, with regard to their actions and behaviour. Combined with a message directed toward the victims, of their lack of responsibility for those actions or/and the fact that they were undeserving of the things that occurred (Achilles and Zehr, 2001), with recognition ‘that the community bears some responsibility for the broader social climate related to the behaviour and with making both individual and social changes which will end the behaviour’ (Pranis, 2001). The restorative justice framework relies on the community to feel responsible for rallying around the victims, facilitating resolutions to unwanted behaviour, while supporting the offender to make amends to the community and the victim, to restore everyone involved to the point where their behaviour was admirable. Furthermore, Pranis, highlights the need for establishing appropriate norms of behaviour for all members of the community, and addressing underlying causes of the harmful behaviour in question (1997). Despite all parts of the community being independent, harm to one is harm to all; good for one is good for all. This ancient understanding of the Indigenous people around the world, has transpired into the Western societies (Melton, 1995). The well-being of the collective is the responsibility of each individual and the well-being of each individual is the responsibility of the collective; this further reinforces the communities position in restorative justice. Actions must be assessed for their impact on the group as well as their impact on specific individual, and due to the fact that the community is affected, they therefore are now involved, and will offer their guidance and help in dealing with these issues. Meaning, it is not only an individual vs individual, but a collective of people in the affected community, striving together for a common goal. A mutual responsibility between the 18

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

individuals and the community to no do harm but actively be responsible in providing support and nurture the well-being of the other in his/hers unique individual needs (Braithwaite and Roche, 2001).

19

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Chapter 2

2.1- Restorative Justice for Domestic Abuse Victims in United Kingdom The accepted definition of restorative justice in the in the United Kingdom is that ‘Restorative processes bring those harmed by crime or conflict, and those responsible for the harm, into communication, enabling everyone affected by a particular incident to play a part in repairing the harm and finding a positive way forward.’(Penal Reform International, 2018). Many argue that restorative justice for domestic abuse victims can only occur once a criteria is satisfied; the violence has to stop, the offender has to take responsibility, the offender is the only one to blame, the process only begins when the victim agrees to it, participation is voluntary and procedures are in place to guarantee that, and lastly there are appropriate services available for the victim and offender post mediation (Penal Reform International, 2018). Studies report that health, well-being, and autonomy of domestic abuse victims are significantly affected (WHO,2013; Campbell, 2002), there are emotional and behavioural changes to their children as a result of the violence (Wolfe et al., 2003), with the society sustaining a range of costs (Walby, 2009). Furthermore, with the lack of criminal offence for domestic abuse, with cases prosecuted under other offences (Liebmann and Wotton, 2010). Many of the offences which fall under domestic abuse are not prosecuted, due to difficulties in distinguishing them (CPS, 2014); particularly cases of controlling/coercive behaviour and psychological abuse. This section will cover, the attitudes towards restorative justice for domestic abuse, as well as exploring if it is occurring in the UK. And lastly, the role of the government in initiating this programme and their concerns and guidance.

The main concern regarding restorative justice is for the safety of the victim, which is threatened when placed in a situation with an obvious power imbalance (Penal Reform International, 2018), 20

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

when the victim and offender, involved in a close intimate relationship are placed in a mediation setting; which can possibly lead to re-victimisation. The current Prime Minister, Theresa May declared that she ‘does not believe it follows evidence or common sense to sit vulnerable victims across from perpetrators who for months and years may have destroyed their confidence, manipulated their mind and beaten their bodies’ (May, 2016). Although from the victim’s point of view as a result of proceeding with the court case; victims feel that perpetrators do not take responsibility for their actions, a sense of guilt occurs when a sentence is given, offender blames the victim, the victim is forced to be a witness, and often they learn through the process to not to report it again (Penal Reform International, 2018). Therefore, re-victimisation can occur not only during restorative justice, but also during the court proceedings; meaning, that restorative justice should not be excluded, for an outcome that can occur in a system that is currently in place.

Another argument against the initiation of restorative justice for domestic abuse victims, is that it will be a ‘soft option’, decriminalizing the offence; this issue being resolved by implementing a hybrid system. The issue of domestic violence has recently become a public matter (Penal Reform International, 2018), with a decrease sense of shame by the victims, and an empowerment to step forward for the sake of their own lives, but as a motivation and a goal for others to do as well.

2.1.1- Government As a primary legislation and policy maker, the government plays a vital role in the functioning of the society on daily basis. There are varying opinions within the government itself, as to the possible application of restorative justice to domestic abuse victims, with the now Prime Minister, being strongly against such scheme, due to concerns regarding re-victimization, while the Ministry of Justice looking to implement a system of restorative justice combined with incarceration. In the UK 21

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

restorative justice developed organically, without any formal structures which would create a consistent framework, for application to even sensitive cases (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2017). This section will focus on what are the opinions and proposals made by the government, along with House of Commons and other legislative branches, with regard to introduction of restorative justice for domestic violence.

The underfunding of police force in the UK, contributed to the lack of delivery of restorative justice to domestic abuse victims, with a MP declaring that the availability of such scheme would be more expensive, and the savings were ‘more emotional than material for criminal justice system’ (Dowling, 2017). The sole focus on material gain for the government rather than improving the quality of life for the victims, and offering what they desire and are entitled too, portrays the errors in the thinking process of the government. Jon Collins quoted a victim of domestic abuse who has engaged in restorative justice in front of the House of Commons Justice Committee; “When I walked out of that meeting, I felt as if I could knock out Mike Tyson. I could have taken on anything or anyone. In the days and weeks afterwards, it was as if a massive weight had been lifted off my shoulders. I had been carrying it for so long that I did not even notice it anymore, so when it disappeared it was amazing. I felt completely empowered.”(Collins, 2017).

Many have argued for a hybrid system which follows the principles of the restorative justice and the criminal justice system. The Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner for Somerset has suggested that the Ministry of Justice should begin funding training for those working with victims of domestic abuse and sex offences, with regard to restorative justice practices (Avon and Somerset Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, 2017). The Justice Committee agreed that ‘restorative justice should be available for all types of offences. While restorative justice will not be appropriate in every case, a brightline exclusion rule is contrary to aims of the Restorative Justice Action 22

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Plan.’(House of Commons Justice Committee, 2017) With a further recommendation for ‘The ministry of justice [to] work with the Restorative Justice Council to create and fun training and promote guidelines of best practice for facilitators in such cases.’ (House of Commons Justice Committee, 2017).

UK research published in 1995 looked at the use of restorative justice for domestic abuse victims (Carbonatto, 1995) along with an analysis of positives and negatives carried out by Strang and Braithwaite (2002); has done little in creating confidence for the project, especially within groups such as victim support groups, feminists etc.. Who remain strongly against implementation and availability of restorative justice for domestic abuse victims. This is due to many issues such as revictimization, being a ‘soft-option’ and the exploitation of women’s emotions (Stubbs, 2007) by the male perpetrators, who typically minimise their own responsibility for the abuse (Dobash et al, 1998; Hearn, 1998).

The ’Restorative Justice Action plan for the Criminal Justice System’ makes a number of short and long term commitments around access, awareness, capacity and evidence. While recognising that ‘many victims of crime get to see sentences being passes, but it’s not always enough to help them move on with their lives. We know that around 85% of victims who participated in restorative justice conferences were satisfied with the experience.’(House of Commons Justice Committee, 2017). The Crime and Courts Act 2013 inserts a new section 1ZA which gives the courts power to defer sentences post-conviction to allow for restorative justice activity to take place. Furthermore, in May 2014, the Ministry of Justices issued an overview of the process as a result of a post-conviction restorative justice, in accordance with the section 1ZA (6) of Powers of the Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.; made available to the public, allowing individuals to understand the process and make an informed decision, whether to pursuit it as an option. Furthermore, there are projects

23

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

in the UK which offer restorative justice and mediation, in cases of domestic violence; for examplePlymouth Mediation, Warwickshire Domestic Violence Support service (Rugby), The Daybreak Dove Project, Victim Liaison Units (Liebmann and Wootton: 2010). Interviews held by practitioners, the domestic abuse violence area is highly politicised. Official bodies, such as the government and the police should be externally dissuading any action that is not punitive. This is due to fear that anything new will be condoning the practice. However, it is evidential that restorative justice has made significant impact on the lives of victims, offenders and the community, and appropriate bodies should push form implementation for all victims regardless of crime.

2.1.2- Original data During research stages for this dissertation, a survey was carried out with the aim of gaining an understanding of opinions held by United Kingdom citizens regarding RJ. This method of gaining results was the most cost efficient and appropriate for this project, due to anonymity and confidentiality of the participants being maintained, along with highly ethical questions asked; with little possibility to cause distress to participants. This survey was posted on social media on voluntary basis, with a disclaimer and briefing occurring before the commencement of the survey, and contact information available for the participants to use.

The total amount of participants was 114, out of which four sets of results had to be discarded due to the participants not residing in the United Kingdom, and that being a requirement needed to have results reflective of UK society. A further question involved the participants declaring whether they know what RJ is; 107 out of 110 participants were aware of RJ and its principles. The below chart showcases the results mentioned above.

24

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Do You Know What Restorative Justice Is? 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 no

yes

Table 1 The third question in the survey ask participants if they agreed on the application of RJ in the UK, with 105 out of 110 participants selecting the answer ‘yes’; the below chart showcases the results.

Do You Agree With Its Application?

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 no

yes

Table 2 The following question asked whether the participants thought RJ can be applied to domestic abuse victims, which resulted in 105 out of 110 selecting the answer ‘yes’. Further supporting the public desire for accessibility to this programme.

25

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Do You Think Restorative Justice Should be Applied To Domestic Abuse Victims?

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 no

yes

Table 3 Lastly the final question in the survey ask participants to decide whether RJ for domestic abuse victims should occur conjointly with incarceration or be an alternative to incarceration. 103 participants out of 110 declared that RJ for domestic abuse victims should occur in corporation with incarceration, which this finding being in tune with government proposals.

Count of If So, Inconjunction With Incarceration Or As An Alternative.

120 100 80 60 40 20 0 A

I

Table 4 Overall the results of the survey portray a clear opinion of a portion the UK society, with the support for RJ for domestic abuse victims in conjunction with incarceration. Although, such opinion cannot be generalised to the UK as a whole, due to a low number of participants not being a reliable reflection of opinions held by individuals in the UK. However, it is a positive indicator that 26

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

the population is in harmony with the proposals made by government institutions, which would result in restorative justice being applied to domestic abuse victims in conjunction to incarceration.

Further reinforcing that support for such system would occur within the society, if the results of this survey would be generalisable.

27

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Chapter 3 3.1 Canada Canada was one of the pioneering countries to embed RJ practices into legislation; circle sentencing became a legal alternative through the implementation of Bill C-41 in 1996. This section will focus on evaluating the applicability of sentencing circles into the UK society, as well as looking at other alternatives available in Canada, to draw a series of recommendations for the UK government.

3.1.1 Sentencing Circles Sentencing circles (SC) involve selected members of the community to meeting in the aim of a discussion of the criminal act that has occurred (Lilles, 2001). This method is reserved for use only for serious crimes, due to being ‘intrusive, lengthy and requiring significant commitment from all participants’ (Lilles, 2001). Primarily this method of sentencing is used for the Aboriginal people of Canada, who account for 2% of overall population, but 17% of admissions to custody (Lilles, 2001).

Furthermore, in arears of higher population of Aboriginal people, such as Saskatchewan, which stands at 8%, these individuals account for 76% of the jail population (Lilles, 2001). The Aboriginal population in Canada, has showcased that domestic violence is a significant issue in their communities; with a report carried out in 2014 showcasing that from the received responses, 9% Aboriginal women experience domestic violence compared to only 4% of women from nonAboriginal background (Www150.statcan.gc.ca, 2014). Although the real statistics with regard to domestic violence will possibly be never known, as unknown numbers of incidents go unreported every day, internationally. Aboriginal communities believe that when misbehaviour occurs, teaching and healing must occur, rather than punishment. In many communities, domestic violence is just

28

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

the tip of the iceberg; often underling issued such as substance abuse treatments, counselling and family workshops will occur after a sentencing circle, to pursue full restoration (Ross, 1996).

Sentencing Circles have very high validity within the Aboriginal community, they are “a very sacred thing… You have to deserve it, earn it, get it… [if an individual is abusing the scheme] the people within that circle [determine that] it’ll go back to your courts…’ (Hector Gaudrey, restorative Justice Program, One Arrow First Nations Saskatchewan: Forum, 2000). However, SC have different meanings in various locations; each scheme being unique to its community. Schemes in Saskatchewan occur pre-charge, contrastingly in Standing Buffalo, they are court driven where a judge determines whether sentencing circle is appropriate (PATHS, 2000). Overall a sentencing circle is really a recommendation circle, they provide a plan for the judge based on resources in the community etc. (PATHS, 2000). A study has exposed the proportionality of recommendations accepted or rejected by judges, as a result of sentencing circles.

Table 5- Did the Judge accept the recommendation from sentencing circle.

(Goldbach, 2016)

29

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

The table shows a significant shift from a high rate of acceptance of recommendations between the years of 1992-2005, to an increase of judges dismissing the recommendations given to them. One may speculate that this is due to the lack of progression by the sentencing circles to meet the standards of present day, and therefore judges are seeing discrepancies between their judgement and recommendations given, when applied to present-day society and criminal justice system.

Furthermore, there have been several criticisms of the scheme, as with any RJ programme in the world. A member of the aboriginal community highlighted that the men will usually con the system by saying anything the circle will want to hear. A further concern is how will they know that the ‘guy’s [isn’t] just going to go along with the program, and in the end this woman is going to get it for making him go through this program‘(Holly Pelletier: Forum, 2000). This can be an issue in those communities where sentencing circles aren’t occurring along the criminal justice system; further contributing to de-criminalisation of domestic violence which is one of the predominant argument for a hybrid system, rather than RJ practices occurring solely and being the ‘soft’ option.

Sentencing Circles have evolved to be known peace-making circles, more commonly used by nonaboriginal individuals (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009). This scheme allows for sub-circles to be created, involving various individuals from either member of the community, the victim or the offender (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006). The circle which combines the victim and offender, may be a result of various circles occurring prior, to determine the appropriateness and readiness of those individuals (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006). Providing safeguards to guarantee the experience of all members involved. A separate circle may occur to determine the sentencing recommendation for the judge involved in this case, as described above. Many researchers agree that sentencing circles play a key role in ensuring that victim needs are met, and they are not re-victimised (Griffiths 1999; Hatch,

30

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Cunningham and Griffiths, 1999), therefore it may be the case of pursuing sentencing circles in the UK, along with criminal prosecution. However, due to the lack of significant meaning to citizens of the UK, regarding sentencing circles, one can argue that they will not hold the same validity and the sacred status, as it does in Aboriginal communities.

3.1.2 Family Group Conference (FGC) Family group conferences (FGC) differs significantly from all the other schemes discussed within this dissertation. FGC is not designed to mediate conflicts between victim and offender or divert from the offender getting punished. Furthermore, it is not designed to keep families together at all costs, despite it not being the correct option in many cases (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009). FGC focuses on creating a situation where all family members can be included in a discussion regarding the incident, the decision making, simultaneously offering support and protection, while those decisions are made (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009). The model breaks the silence surrounding abuse, while increasing the support circle in protecting the victim and holding the offender accountable (Pennell and Burford, 1997). FGC, creates more individuals involved in holding the offender accountable, and responsible for monitoring possible reoffending occurring (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009).

Research carried out by Pennell and Burford, indicated that FGC’s are effective in both diminishing new incidents of violence and repeating relationships of those involved in the conference (1995).

The study in Newfoundland and Labrador in 1993 and 1994, compared families were conflict or abuse was an issue, to those where incidents weren’t occurring (Pennell and Burford, 1995).

Overall, 32 families took part, which equated to 37 conferences, and 472 participants, of which 384 were family members (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009). Families involved where known to child 31

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

services, often being involved in more difficult cases (Pennell and Burford, 1995). At the conferences no violence took place, and those families subjected to conferences reported a decline by half, while incidents in the control group increased (Pennell ad Burford, 1995). No evidence to suggest participation in the conference caused violence (Pennell and Burford, 1995), which suggests its applicability to have positive effects on participants. 66% of family members, declared that their family was ‘better off’ due to participation in the conferences, 6% indicated their family was ‘worse off’ and 19% said it remained the ‘same’ (Pennell and Burford, 1995). Imperative to highlight that the 6% which declared that their families were ‘worse off’, do not indicate increase in violence, but could mean that the family broke-down etc. Further research would be required to examine what factors contributed to the family being ‘worse off’; although a dominant portion of the participants declared improvements as a direct result of the conferences. Despite the positive results the Canadian government withdraw its commitment to the scheme, due to the expensive nature of the programme (Busch, 2002). Although, the scheme was adopted in North Carolina (USA) by Pennell, in collaboration with the North Carolina Against Domestic Violence (Pennell, 2007); which have been renamed to ‘safety conferencing’, these will be further explored in the USA section.

3.2 USA The USA has a long history of restorative justice programmes, all varying significantly from the other. The programmes discussed within this dissertation are those mostly used in various States, although it must be highlighted that other programmes are available, however upon further research, their suitability to the UK was questioned, resulting in a lack of discussion with regard to those programmes.

32

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

3.2.1 Victims Offender Mediation/Dialogue (VOM/VOD) Victim Offender Dialogue/Mediation (VOD/VOM) is the form of restorative justice most commonly available in the United States. The principles of the programme surround the meeting of the victim and the offender (Daly, 2012) in the presence of a trained mediator (Webber, 2012), to facilitate the dialogue for the two individuals involved. Similarly, to all RJ programmes, VOD facilitates the opportunity for the victim to ask offender questions, as well as explain how their crime has affected their life; furthermore, the central goals relate to healing the harm caused to the victim and making the offender accountable for their actions (Shenk, 2001). American study in Oregon, found that 8/10 victims were satisfied with the RJ process (Umbreit et al., 2006). Furthermore, National Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant reports found on three different occasions, that domestic violence victims were dissatisfied with the traditional court system (National Institute of Justice, 2006).

Comparing these findings to attitudes present in the UK, it is clear that strong similarities are present, victims are dissatisfied with the criminal justice system, and those who have participated in RJ, were satisfied. Those participating in VOD thought the process was fair (80%), compared to only 37%, who thought the traditional criminal process was fair (Umbreit, et al., 2006). Moreover, in results from one study, 81% of offenders who partook in VOD, complied with the restitution agreement, compared to only 57% of those who went through the court process (Umbreit et al., 2006). Concerns regarding the victims arise because VOM involves a session where the victim, offender, a criminal justice representative and a mediator are present to discuss the crime and agree on a resolution (Dhami, 2012). Despite reservations1 about the use of VOM in domestic violence cases, the programme has proven to impact reduction of recidivism in other violent crimes (Mongold and Edwards, 2014). Researchers across the world have agreed that RJ are not suitable

1

These reservations include fears of re-victimization, impact on the victim, limited research on outcomes of VOM and the criminal justice preference for punitive methods (Gavrielides, 2015; Mills et al., 2013)

33

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

for every case and should be only considered on case by case basis; taking into account severity of the violence and victim willingness to participate (Gavrielides, 2015). Sherman et al. (2015) determined that a case would not be appropriate for RJ if there were significant threats of violence, and when the victim is not comfortable with the mediation.

The reservations towards VOM, are those often present in many RJ programmes. The limited availability of research as to the impact of VOM on victims (Laxminarayan and Woldhuis, 2015), further contribute to the lack of availability of the programme to the victims. Furthermore, power and control dynamics that are associated with domestic violence, was determined by judges and lawyers to be a concern (Gavrielides, 2015); due to those power and control imbalances, many deem VOM (along with other RJ programmes) unsuitable for victims, due to risk of re-victimization.

Although as previously discussed in this text, the victims experience risks of re-victimization, through the traditional process of criminal justice; as far there has not been any research comparing the probability of re-victimization of victims in RJ compared to the court process. Lastly, the victims’ willingness to participate and the need for the mediation to occur in a safe environment for all involved (Laxminarayan and Woldhuis, 2015) contributes to the lack of opportunities for research to be carried out in this field, or research to examine the effects of VOM on offenders and victims (Laxminarayan and Woldhuis, 2015). Although, the fact that when the victim attempts to leave domestic abusers, they may be at a greater rick of physical harm, which can result in death (Pow et al., 2015) should contribute to the argument in favour of another option for victims to have.

Research into RJ and domestic violence cases, has concluded that it may be effective in reducing recidivism when used post-conviction (Miller and Iovanni, 2013); further suggesting that the victim will have more time to heal and the offender may develop empathy and understanding of the crime

34

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

if the intervention occurs after incarceration (Miller and Iovanni, 2013). Furthermore, the research concluded that by reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite, 1998), the offenders will have a better understanding of the domestic violence not meeting social norms (Herman et al., 2014). A quantitative study by Mills et al. (2013) suggested that RJ interventions are effective in reduction of recidivism in offenders; at the 6, 12, 18 and 24 month follow-up, results suggest that offenders had reduced recidivism rates; and at the 6 month follow-up those rates were much lower, that offenders in other programmes (Mills et al., 2013). Despite limitations such as sample size, location and demographic of offenders, these findings support the impact of such programmes on recidivism rates. Therefore, the limited application to domestic abuse cases, prevents many victims from recovery and healing; as the evidence is clear, the current system is failing victims, and the proposed programmes are successful when applied even to violent crimes.

3.2.2 North Carolina Pennell brought FGC to the USA in the shape of ‘safety conferencing’ which was designed to address child welfare in order to build partnerships with and around families’ that safe-guard children and adult family members (Pennell, 2002). Research was carried out in the communities the project was going to be implemented, in the aim of getting response and opinions on how the scheme can be adopted to the unique features and needs of the specific communities (Pennell and Weil, 2002). The four-year project provided training and evaluation to 13 counties in North Carolina (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006). This new feminist/restorative hybrid involved advice taken from child services, child protection workers, the domestic violence court, the police and the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence (which was a significant collaborator in creating this project) (Ptacek, 2014).

35

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Saftey Conferencing focused on encouraging joint planning rather than assigned fault, which would occur in traditional court planning. Furthermore, family leadership was prioritised over professional deliberations (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006), which allowed the members most affected to be in the driving seat within the proceedings, rather than handing over this control to a stranger. Moreover, decision making rather than treatment was highlighted to make safety conferencing differ from family therapy (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006). Lastly, group responsibility was prioritised rather than reconciliation (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006), which follows the primary aim of FGC not trying to keep nuclear families together, whatever the cost.

Post evaluation the families were satisfied with the programme and the plan, which they have arrived to at the end of the scheme (Sullivan and Tifft, 2006). However, there were certain concerns, many participants noted that they felt key family members were missing from the conferences (Pennell, 2003), which would be a significant variable to the overall success of these conferences, as absence might have hindered the outcomes or even allowed for them to be successful as the missing member could have needed more than the scheme could offer. Although there were never complaints about certain participants form the family being present in the conferences (Pennell and Burford, 1995), which translated over to the North Carolina project.

However, based on input provided from key organisations, it was unclear whether the offenders would have a place in the conference (Pennell and Francis, 2005), which is a significant difference from the original FGC project, and would deem this project incompatible with the desired project occurring in the UK, as based on RJ principles, the victim and offender relationship is key in restoration. Therefore, recommendation in the following chapter, will not be drawing on safety conferencing, as a guide in implementing a RJ scheme in the UK.

36

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Chapter 4

4.1 Recommendations Restorative justice applicability to domestic abuse victims has proven to be beneficial to all parties involved in the process, despite the focus remains on pursuing incarceration, to ensure punishment is served for the law broken. Reservations surrounding the use of restorative justice for domestic abuse victims are re-victimisation, abusing victims’ emotions, de-criminalising the offence and allowing for the programme to be a ‘soft-option’ for offender, rather than incarceration. Each issue has been addressed throughout this dissertation, either with an option to minimise the risk, or portray that these risks occur in the criminal justice system. This chapter will focus on setting out recommendations based on the analysis of above programmes, with the aim of providing guidance to the UK government and other appropriate bodies, with regard to restorative justice for domestic abuse victims. The focus will be emphasised on the advantages and disadvantages of each of the above schemes, as well as their possible application to UK society; with the overall aim of creating a guideline for a programme that addresses all the concerns present, while providing for the needs of all involved.

4.1.1 VOD/VOM The Victim Offender Dialogue/Mediation (VOD/VOM) which was analyses on its applicability in the United States of America, focused on facilitating the meeting between the offender and the victims (Daly, 2012), monitored by a trained individual (Webber, 2012). Many fear that face-2-face meetings allows for power imbalance to dominate, and as a result re-victimisation can occur,

37

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Stubbs further suggests that generic restorative justice practice may not be appropriate to domestic abuse (2007). However, when allowing for the face-to-face meetings to occur post-incarceration, the likelihood of re-victimisation is significantly reduced. Miller and Iovanni, support this process, by further reinforcing that the victim will have more time to heal, and the offender may have developed feelings of empathy and understood the effects of their crime better (2013). VOM’s central goals relate to healing the harm caused to the victim and making the offender accountable for their actions (Shenk, 2001), the applicability of reintegrative shaming developed by Braithwaite, in VOM, allows for the offender to understand that domestic violence does not meet social norms (Herman et al., 2014). Further reinforced by the fact that 81% of offenders who participated in VOM complied with the agreement reached at the end of the process, compared to only 57% of offenders who were only subjected to criminal proceedings (Umbreit et al., 2006). The issue of victim satisfaction with the court system is significantly predominant in the USA, similarly to UK; application of a system similar to VOM in UK would translate to increased satisfaction among victims, who would otherwise be abandoned by the traditional system.

However, research into the effectiveness of VOM has showcased a significant stigma around conducting research in scenarios involving domestic abuse victims, with many researchers highlighting the limited research of effects of VOM on victims (Laxminarayan and Woldhuis, 2015).

Although when the programme was implemented for offenders for other violent crime by Mongold and Edwards (2014), it has suggested a reduction in recidivism; which could easily translate to domestic violence incidents. The predominant issue is that research will not be carried out, until these programmes have further support and wider implementation. However, without research these programmes don’t have the needed support for wider implementations; until broken, the

38

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

cycle will continue. There has been enough research into victims’ satisfaction after participating in restorative justice2, that the clear reservations occurring, should be diminished.

A recommendation suggesting application of VOM/VOD in the UK would suggest a positive benefit for the victims and offenders involved in the process. Despite the above challenges, implementation of features of VOM to UK, such as mediation between offender and victim, monitored by a trained mediator, post incarceration, would offer the victims a chance to ask question, talk about their pain. While simultaneously further their healing process, and possibly offer an apology. The programme would offer offenders a change to apologise, make amends, and understand the pain and consequences of their crime; rather than assuming that once their prison time is over, the crime and its affects disappear.

4.1.2 Safety Conferencing (North Carolina) This programme integrated the principles developed by Pennell and Burford in Family Group Conferencing (FGC). The programme failed to gain funding for implementation to a wider arear in North Carolina and ceased to exist in 2018. Although first promising, by integrating the aspect of family/community, which was missing in VOM, further contributions from advising bodies, highlighted that the offenders position in the conferences was not certain (Pennell and Francis, 2005), which significantly hindered the applicability of the principles of the programme to the UK, as through research into restorative justice, the benefits for the victims are through mediation with the offender, rather than just the community/family. Limiting both the applicability and benefits

2

85% of victims satisfied after taking part in restorative justice practice. (Restorativejustice.org.uk, 2018)

39

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

the programme can offer, therefore, no recommendations for the United Kingdom will be made based on Safety Conferencing.

4.1.3 Family Group Conference (FGC) Family group conferences focused on keeping families together, regardless if that was the correct option for the situation (Ptacek and Frederick, 2009), while widening the support for the victim and breaking the silence surrounding abuse. Research carried out by founders of the model Pennell and Burford, showed that 66% of family members out of 384, said their family was ‘better-off’ as a direct result of FGC, while only 6% declared that they were ‘worse-off’- although ambiguity as to what determined their family to be ‘worse-off’ has not been answered. There is no evidence to suggest that increase in violent incidents was the reason for such answer, perhaps the family breaking-down, or having to face issues which the member was uncomfortable with, contributed to such answer. Despite the positive outcomes, Canadian government ceased support due to the expensive nature of programme.

A recommendation based on this model, would be an implementation of FGC along VOM, allowing the participants, most importantly the victim to choose whether they want one of the other, or both. Firstly, participating in VOM, to have their voice heard, and secondly having FGC to integrate reintegrative shaming and the aspect of community/family shame which has been proven to be a ‘more potent agents to achieve the objectives of denunciation’ (Morris, 2002), being more affective that the criminal justice system.

40

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

4.1.4 Sentencing Circles Sentencing Circles have predominantly been used for the aboriginal community of Canada; in which these sentencing circles have a very high validity and are considered sacred. Therefore, often they are used instead of incarceration, which would have limited application in the UK, as throughout this essay an argument against de-criminalisation of the offence of domestic abuse, highlighted the need of any restorative justice adding onto incarceration, in the UK, rather than be an alternative.

Although, in some arears SC has been used as a recommendation board, providing advice to a judge with regard to the resources and abilities of the community with regard to the offender. A shift in rejection of recommendations by judges increased in recent years, suggesting that SC aren’t as appropriate as they once were; suggesting a further limitation as judges may be unwilling to take advice from unexperienced circles, with lack of knowledge of the law. Furthermore, the sacred states given to sentencing circles by the Aboriginal community, may not be replicated by the UK society, as the same respect for elders in the community is not present in the UK. Moreover, the multicultural society of UK, may not necessarily have the same community bond, needed for sentencing circles to be successful. Therefore, despite its successful application, the success is dependent on a variable which cannot be replicated in the UK.

41

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Chapter 5

5.1 Conclusion In conclusion it is clear through the analysis occurring in this dissertation that restorative justice has successful applicability to domestic abuse victims. There are significant benefits to all participants, victims, offenders and the community, when RJ takes place. Contrastingly, the traditional criminal justice systems leave victims feeling ignored, and forgotten; not just in the United Kingdom, but in many countries around the world. These issues are solved by RJ schemes, which place the victim in the centre and control of their case. A significant shift has occurred in the UK government, towards pushing for RJ practices for all victims, by funding more training to those working with vulnerable individuals, as shown by government publications. Although, criticism for the scheme still occurs, with members of key organisations still declaring that RJ cannot do any good to victims of domestic abuse violence. The issues of re-victimisation, were addressed by highlighting that victims incur a chance of being re-victimised while in the traditional criminal process. Furthermore, the issue of decriminalisation of the offence has been resolved by highlighting that RJ practices need to be an addition to the criminal justice system, rather than an alternative; with further support from scholars such as- Hudson (2002) and Stubbs (2007); highlighting that a hybrid system, would be more accepted by those who oppose implementation of RJ to domestic abuse victims.

Analysis of RJ schemes in the USA and Canada, enabled a clear understanding of advantages and disadvantages of each programme, with Victim Offender Mediation/Dialogue and Family Group Conferencing, providing the most guidance in creating a set of recommendations for the application of a scheme in the UK. VOM/VOD combined with FGC allows for flexibility between the wishes of the victim; whether they want to meet with the offender alone, or along with community/family.

42

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Both schemes have produced positive evidence when studies, with VOM/VOD declaring that 81% of offenders complied with the resolution plan created, compared to only 57% of those who went through only the court system (Umbreit et al., 2006). Furthermore, with regard to FGC 66% of family members of out 384, declared that their families were ‘better-off’ as a direct result of the conferencing that occurred. However, other programmes analysed such as sentencing circles and safety conferencing, were deemed inappropriate due to variables of success depending on unique characteristics of the community; such as the sacred status of sentencing circles in the Aboriginal community of Canada and the lack of a chance for an offender to participate in safety conferencing.

Lastly, this dissertation provided a set of recommendation highlighting the positives and negatives of each programme addressed, and their applicability in the UK. With the final result being a set of recommendations for a hybrid system of restorative justice and the criminal justice process; set on principles of VOM/VOD and FGC, allowing the victim to make decisions in how they want their restorative justice carried out. A hybrid of VOM/VOD and FGC reinforces the principles of RJ, as well as addressing the needs of all stakeholders affected. Providing a unique system available to the UK, with evidence of success in various other countries. Therefore, if those recommendations were to be applied, it is the belief that success would be the most likely outcome, if applied and funded appropriately while being available to domestic abuse victims, among other vulnerable individuals, failed by the sole application of the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom.

43

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Bibliography Books Achillies, M., and Zehr, H. (2001). Restorative justice for crime victims: The promise, The challenge.

In Bazmore, G. and Schiff, M. (EDS.), Restorative and community justice cultivating common ground for victims, communities and offenders. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Bazemore, G. & Earle, T. (2002). Balance in the Response to Family Violence: Challenging Restorative Principles, in Restorative Justice And Family Violence 153, 155-56 (Strang, H. & Braithwaite, J. eds.)

Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge University Press.

Braithwaite, J. and Roche, D. (2001) Responsibility and Restorative Justice in Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M. (eds) Restorative Community Justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities, 6384. Cincinnati: Anderson Publishing Co. Busch, R. (2002) “Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice: Who Pays if We Get it Wrong?”, Restorative Justice and Family Violence, ed. by Heather Strang and John Braithwaite, Pp.223-248, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Daly, K. (2001), ‘Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings and Prospects’, in A. Morris and G. Maxwell, eds., Restoring Justice for Juveniles: Conferences, mediation and Circles. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Daly, K. (2013). The punishment debate in restorative justice. In J. Simon & R. Sparks (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of punishment and society (pp. 356-375). London: England. SAGE. doi:10.4135/9781446247624.n18 Dhami, M. (2012). Offer and Acceptance of Apology in Victim-Offender Mediation. Critical Criminology, 20(1), 45-60. doi: 10.1007/s10612-011-9149-5 Strang. H & Braithwaite. J (eds) (2002) Restorative Justice and Family Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (2002). The Oxford handbook of criminology. Oxford [England]: Oxford University Press.

McCold, M. (2006). The Recent History of Restorative Justice: Mediation, Circles, and Conferencing, in HANDBOOK OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE 23-51 (D. Sullivan & L. Tifft eds).

Pennell, J. (2006) Stopping Domestic Violence or Protecting Children? Contributions from Restorative Justice in HANDBOOK OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE (D. Sullivan & L. Tifft, eds.)

Pranis, K. (2000), ‘Democratizing Social Control: restorative Justice, Social Justice and the Empowernment of Marginalized Populations’, in L. Walgrave and G. Bazemore, eds., Restoring juvenile justice: An exploration of Restorative justice paradigm for reforming juvenile justice.

Monsey, New York: Criminal Justice Press Ross, R. (1996), Returning to the Teachings: Exploring Aboriginal Justice, Toronto, Ontario: Penguin Books 44

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Sherman et al., The Variable Effects of Arrest on Criminal Careers: The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment, 83 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 137, 144 (1992).

Strand, H. (2001), ‘Justice for victims of young offenders: the centrality of emotional harm and restoration’, in A. Morris and G. Maxwell, eds., restoring justice for juvenilise: Conferences, mediation and Circles. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Sullivan, D., & Tifft, L. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of Restorative Justice: A Global Perspective. New York: Routledge, 574 pp Weeber, S. (2012). Restorative justice. In S. Barton-Bellessa (Ed.), Encyclopedia of community corrections. 395-396. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi: http://dx.doi.org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.4135/9781452218519.n159 Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses. Herald Press.

Government Publications CPS (2013) Violence Against Women and Girls Crime Report (London: Crown Prosecution Service) House of Commons Justice Committee (2017). Restorative Justice. London: House of Commons.

Law Commission. (2000) From Restorative Justice To Transformative Justice. Discussion paper.

Ottawa: Law Commission of Canada Ministry of Justice (2013) Transforming the CJS; A Strategy and action plan to reform the criminal justice system. HMSO. UK Ministry of Justice (2013) Victims’ Services Commissioning Framework (London: Ministry of Justice).

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE, Practical Implications of Current Domestic Violence Research: For Law Enforcement, Prosecutors & Judges (June 2009), available at http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/practicalimplicationsresearch/pages/toc.aspx (last visited May 23, 2018) Office of National Statistics (2013) Focus on: Violent Crime and Sexual Offences, 2011/12, ONS PATHS (2000). Restorative Justice: Is It Justice For Battered Women?. Saskatchewan: Provincial Association of Transition houses and services of Saskatchewan.

World Health Organisation (2013) Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non.

Journals Barnett, R. (1977). Restitution: A New Paradigm of Criminal Justice. Ethics, 87(4), pp.279-301.

Braithwaite, J. (1995). Reintegrative Shaming, Republicanism and Policy in H. Barlow (ed.) Criminology and Public Policy: Putting Theory to Work, 191-205. Boulder: Westview Press 45

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Burford, G. and Pennell, J. (1998). Family group decision making. St. John's, Nfld.: Memorial University of Newfoundland School of Social Work.

Campbell, J (2002) Health consequences of intimate partner violence, The Lancet, Vol. 359, Issue 9314: 1331-133 Carbonatto, H., & Victoria University of Wellington. Institute of Criminology 1995, Expanding intervention options for spousal abuse: the use of restorative justice, Institute of Criminology, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, N.Z Christine, N. (1977). Conflicts As Property. The British Journal of Criminology, 17(1), pp.1-15.

Clark H. Bouwman; THE VICTIM AND HIS CRIMINAL: A STUDY IN FUNCTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY. By Stephen Schafer. New York: Random House, 1968. 178 pp. Social Forces, Volume 47, Issue 4, 1 June 1969, Pages 514–515.

Dobash, R.E, Dobash, R.P., Cavanagh, K. and Lewis, R. (1998) ‘Separate and Intersecting Realisties: A comparison of Men’s and Women’s Accounts of Violence against Women’, Violence Against Women 4(4): 382-414 Drijber, B., Reijnders, U. and Ceelen, M. (2012). Male Victims of Domestic Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 28(2), pp.173-178.

Eglash, A. (1977). Beyond Restitution- Creative Restitution. 1st ed. Lexington Books.

Erez, E. and Tontodonato, P. (1990). The Effect Of Victim Participation In Sentencing On Sentence Outcome. Criminology, 28(3), pp.451-474.

Farmer, E. and Callan, S. (2012). Beyond Violence- Breaking cycles of domestic abuse. [ebook] London: Centre for Social Justice. Available at: http://www.ignitionlearn.co.uk/assets/resources/Farmer-and-Callan-2012-Beyond-Violence.pdf [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].

Gavrielides, T. (2015). Is restorative justice appropriate for domestic violence cases? Social Work Review / Revista De Asistenta Sociala, 14(4), 105-121 Goldbach, T. (2016). Instrumentalizing the Expressive: Transplanting Sentencing Circles into the Canadian Criminal Trial. Cornell Law Faculty Publications.

Griffiths, C. (1999) ‘The Victims of Crime and Restorative Justice: The Canadian Experience’ in International Review of Victimology, Vol 6, pp. 279-94.

Hatch Cunningham, A. and Griffiths, C. (1999) Canadian Criminal Justice. Oxford, UK: Harcourt.

Hearn, J (2012) ‘The sociological significance of domestic violence: Tensions, paradoxes and implications’, Current Sociology, 61 (2): 152-170 Herman, K., Rotunda, R., Williamson, G., & Vodanovich, S. (2014). Outcomes from a duluth model batterer intervention program at completion and long term follow up. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(1), 1-18. doi:10.1080/10509674.2013.861316 Hudson, B. (2002). Restorative Justice and Gendered Violence: Diversion or Effective Justice?. The British Journal of Criminology, 42(3), pp.616-634.

46

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

James Ptacek & Loretta Frederick, Restorative Justice and Intimate Partner Violence, VAWNET, January 2009, http://www.vawnet.org/Assoc_Files_VAWnet/AR_RestorativeJusticeIPV.pdf.

Lajeunesse, T. (1993). Community Holistic Circle Healing: Hollow Water First Nation, Aboriginal Peoples Collection. Canada: Supply and Services.

Laxminarayan, M. and Wolthuis, A. (2015). Hindernissen voor een ruimer gebruik van herstelrecht. Tijdschrift voor Herstelrecht, 15(4), pp.25-40.

Liebmann, M. and Wooton, L. (2010) Restorative Justice and Domestic Violence/ Abuse. HMP Cardiff and The Home Office Crime Reduction Unit For Wales.

Lilles, H. (2002). Circle Sentencing: Part of the Restorative Justice Continuum.

Llewellyn, J. and Howse, R. (1989). Restorative Justice - A Conceptual Framework. 1st ed. Toronto.

Marshall, T. (1985). Alternatives to criminal courts: The potential for non-judicial dispute resolution.

Brookfield, VT: Gower.

Maxwell, G. and Morris, A. (2002). Restorative justice and reconviction. Contemporary Justice Review, 5(2), pp.133-146.

McBarnet, D. (1983). Victim in the witness box? Confronting victimology's stereotype. Contemporary Crises, 7(3), pp.293-303.

McCold, P. and Wachtel, T. (2003). In Pursuit of Paradigm : A Theory of Restorative Justice.

Melton, A. (1995). "Indigenous Justice Systems and Tribal Society," 70 Judicature 126.

Miller, S. L., & Iovanni, L. (2013) Using Restorative justice for gendered violence: success with a post-conviction model. Feminist Criminology, 8, 247-268. Retrieved from http://fcx.sagepub.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/content/8/4/247.full.pdf+html Mills, L. G., Barocas, B., & Ariel, B. (2013). The next generation of court-mandated domestic violence treatment: A comparison study of batterer intervention and restorative justice programs.

Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(1), 65-90. doi: 10.1007/s11292-012-9164-x Mongold, J. L., & Edwards, B. D. (2014). Reintegrative shaming: Theory into practice. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology, 6(3), 205-212. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1635433331?accountid=14872 Pennell, et al., (2007) North Carolina Family-centred Meetings Project: Annual Report to the North Carolina Division of Social Services.

Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (2000) Family Group Decision Making: Protecting Children and Woman, 79 CHILD WELFARE 131, 133.

Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (1994). Widening the Circle: The Family Group Decision Making Project, 9 J. CHILD & YOUTH CARE 1, 1-13.

Pennell, J. & Burford, G. (1995). Family Group Decision Making: New Roles For 'Old' Partners In Resolving Family Violence: Implementation Report.

Pennell, J. & Francis, S. (2005). Safety Conferencing: Toward a Coordinated and Inclusive Response to Safeguard Women and Children. 11 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 666.

47

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Shenk, A. H. Victim-Offender Mediation: The Road to Repairing Hate Crime Injustice, 17 OHIO ST. J. ON DISP. RESOL. 185, 216 (2001).

Sherman, L., Strang, H., Mayo-Wilson, E., Woods, D., & Ariel, B. (2015). Are restorative justice conferences effective in reducing repeat offending? findings from a Campbell systematic review.

Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(1), 1-24. doi: 10.1007/s10940-014-9222-9 Sherman, L.W. and Strang, H. (2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Centre for Restorative Justice, research School of Social Science, Australia National University.

Shireman, C. (1998). Book Reviews Third Parties: Victims and the Criminal Justice System. By Leslie Sebba. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1996. Pp. 446. Social Service Review, 72(2), pp.272273.

Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(2), pp.169-187.

Umbreit et al., Restorative Justice in the Twenty-First Century: A Social Movement Full of Opportunities and Pitfalls, 89 MARQ. L. REV. 251, 254 (2005).

Umbreit, M (1994) Victim Meets Offender. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press Walby, S. (2009). The Cost of Domestic Violence: Up-date 2009. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Lancaster University, Lancaster.

Weitekamp, E.G.M. (1999) “The history of restorative justice" in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds.)

Restorative juvenile justice: Repairing the harm of youth crime Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press Wolfe, D., Crooks, C., Lee, V., McIntyre-Smith, A., and Jaffe, P (2003) The Effect’s of Children’s Exposure to Domestic Violence: A Meta-analysis and Critique, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Vol. 6, Issue 3: 171-187

Websites Ancient Facts. (2018). Cruel & Unusual: How Ancient Egyptians Punished Their Criminals - Ancient Facts. [online] Available at: http://www.ancientfacts.net/how-ancient-egyptians-punished-theircriminals/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2018].

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2018). Restorative justice in Australia. [online] Available at: https://aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/rpp127/restorative-justice-australia [Accessed 15 Aug. 2018].

Baird, V. (2016). 'No' to Restorative Justice for Domestic Abuse says, Vera Baird. [online] Northumbria PCC. Available at: http://www.northumbria-pcc.gov.uk/no-to-restorative-justice-fordomestic-abuse-says-vera-baird/ [Accessed 8 Aug. 2018].

Cottrill, N. (2017). Domestic abuse in England and Wales - Office for National Statistics. [online] Ons.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/domesticabus einenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2017#domestic-abuse-recorded-by-the-police [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].

48

Roksana Galuba

1405905

MSc Applied Criminology

Full Fact. (2018). Prisons: re-offending, costs and conditions. [online] Available at: https://fullfact.org/crime/state-prisons-England-Wales/ [Accessed 10 Aug. 2018].

Justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. (2018). [online] Available at: https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/prisons/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2014/04/RJ_CJJI_PressRel_Sept12.pdf [Accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

Penal Reform International. (2018). What can restorative justice offer victims of domestic violence?

- Penal Reform International. [online] Available at: https://www.penalreform.org/blog/canrestorative-justice-offer-victims-domestic-violence/ [Accessed 8 Aug. 2018].

Restorativejustice.org.uk. (2018). Evidence supporting the use of restorative justice | Restorative Justice Council. [online] Available at: https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/evidencesupporting-use-restorative-justice [Accessed 7 Aug. 2018].

Restorativejustice.org.uk. (2018). Evidence supporting the use of restorative justice | Restorative Justice Council. [online] Available at: https://restorativejustice.org.uk/resources/evidencesupporting-use-restorative-justice [Accessed 17 Aug. 2018].

The British Library. (2018). Timeline of the Women's Liberation Movement. [online] Available at: https://www.bl.uk/sisterhood/timeline [Accessed 6 Aug. 2018].

Figures

Table 1-4- Derived from original data collected by Galuba, R. (2018) Table 5- Goldbach, T. (2016). Instrumentalizing the Expressive: Transplanting Sentencing Circles into the Canadian Criminal Trial. Cornell Law Faculty Publications.

49