A review of research on restorative justice (RJ) in the UK and \nabroad shows that across 36 direct comparisons to conventional \ncriminal justice (CJ), RJ has, in at least two tests each: \n• substantially reduced repeat offending for some offenders, \nbut not all; \n• doubled (or more) the offences brought to justice as diversion \nfrom CJ; \n• reduced crime victims’ post-traumatic stress symptoms and \nrelated costs; \n• provided both victims and offenders with more satisfaction \nwith justice than CJ; \n• reduced crime victims’ desire for violent revenge against their \noffenders; \n• reduced the costs of criminal justice, when used as diversion \nfrom CJ; \n• reduced recidivism more than prison (adults) or as well as \nprison (youths). \nThese conclusions are based largely on two forms of restorative \njustice (RJ): face-to-face meetings among all parties connected \nto a crime, including victims, offenders, their families and friends, \nand court-ordered financial restitution. Most of the face-to-face \nevidence is based on consistent use of police officers trained in \nthe same format for leading RJ discussions. These meetings \nhave been tested in comparison with conventional criminal \njustice (CJ) without benefit of RJ, at several stages of CJ for \nviolence and theft: \n• as diversion from prosecution altogether (Australia and US); \n• as a pre-sentencing, post-conviction add-on to the \nsentencing process; \n• as a supplement to a community sentence (probation); \n• as a preparation for release from long-term imprisonment to \nresettlement; \n• as a form of final warning to young offenders. \nViolent crimes \nSix rigorous field tests found RJ reduced recidivism after adult or \nyouth violence. Three of these were randomised controlled trials \n(RCTs), conducted with youth under 30 in Canberra, females \nunder 18 in Northumbria, and (mostly) males under 14 in \nIndianapolis. Reasonable comparisons also show effects for adult \nmales in West Yorkshire and the West Midlands, as well as for \nviolent families in Canada. \nProperty crimes \nFive tests of RJ have found reductions in recidivism after \nproperty crime. Four were RCTs done with youth: in Northumbria, \nGeorgia, Washington and Indianapolis. Diversion of property \noffenders to RJ, however, increased arrest rates among a small \nsample of Aboriginals in Canberra. \nVictim benefits \nTwo RCTs in London show that RJ reduces post-traumatic stress; \nin four RCTs RJ reduces desire for violent revenge; in four RCTs \nvictims prefer RJ over CJ. \nRJ versus prison \nIn Idaho an RCT of RJ as court-ordered restitution did no worse \nthan short jail sentences for youth. In Canada adults diverted \nfrom prison to RJ had lower reconviction rates than a matched \nsample of inmates. \nOffences brought to justice \nFive RCTs in New York and Canberra show diversion to RJ yields \nOBTJ (offences brought to justice) rates 100% to 400% higher \nthan CJ, including for robbery and assault, when offenders take \nresponsibility but need not sign full admission to crime. \nA way forward \nThe evidence on RJ is far more extensive, and positive, than it has \nbeen for many other policies that have been rolled out nationally. \nRJ is ready to be put to far broader use, perhaps under a \n“Restorative Justice Board” that would prime the pump and \novercome procedural obstacles limiting victim access to RJ. \nSuch a board could grow RJ rapidly as an evidence-based \npolicy, testing the general deterrent impact of RJ on crime, and \ndeveloping the potential benefits of “restorative communities” \nthat try RJ first.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 525 citations exist upstream.