‘Restoring communities and Young Offenders? A critical Evaluation of Restorative Justice’

‘Restoring communities and Young Offenders? A critical Evaluation of Restorative Justice’

Introduction

Currently the UK Criminal Justice System (CJS) is based around retributive ideals. This current system has been distilled through the last two centuries and is therefore the preferred status quo of the populace due to it’s credence of heritage however there is an equally long heritage of critical appraisals of the system to match it.

Restorative Justice (RJ) proposes an alternative to the current system by diverting young offenders away from the administrative expert led CJS and similarly taking victims from their current position behind the CJS’s guardians and allowing them to establish direct dialogue with each other with direction and support.

This essay will attempt to provide an introduction to RJ through an explanation of its origins and how it differs from the current retributive CJS, an explanation of the basic processes of RJ and then to introduce the criticisms of RJ according to the leading proponents of other theories.

Part 1: The theoretical origins of Restorative Justice and its central propositions.

The current system as mentioned has a heritage of criticism that has contributed to its development. However since the 1960’s [McLaughlin et al (2003) in McLaughlin et al, 2003:1] various schools of thought have developed criticisms that call for more far reaching alterations. Whilst these critiques all come from varied perspectives (Faith based approaches to criminality, Abolitionism, Feminism, Peacemaking, Communitarian, Labelling theory and Alternative social control methods) [Muncie et al 2005:67 & Hughes, G in McLaughlin & Muncie 2001:282] They all espouse the positivity of the concept of RJ.

Whilst the criticisms on a micro level are specific to each contributor, on an overview there are various critical points that fit together as opposition to the current CJS. Many theories draw on sociologically constructed ‘forgotten’ traditions of western communities [Muncie et al 2005:68]. Whilst contemporary tribal and traditional societies are referenced by other thinkers such as Christie [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-28] De Haan [De Haan, W (1991) in McLaughlin et al 2004:381-392] and Braithwaite [Braithwaite, J (1989) in McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399].

The current system defines crime as the breaking of the law as defined by the state and therefore an offence against the state [Muncie, J in Muncie & McLaughlin 2001:10-12] as a result the state takes possession of the offence and utilises it’s own legal machinery to seek redress [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:25]. RJ offers the alternative of crime being a conflict of interests [De Haan, W (1991) in McLaughlin et al 2004:387] and a potential for dialogue. This conflict being abuse or breakdown in management of a relationship between an offender and the community or the victim [Braithwaite, J (1989) McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399].Crime is perceived as a ‘harm’ that has a negative effect on the community as opposed to a transgression of a state drawn ‘line in the sand’.

With regards to the main victim, as stated once the law is broken the state perceives itself as the primary victim and gives itself precedent before the individual victim of the offence [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:21-28]. RJ on the other hand proposes that the system be centred around the victim who is given the right to express their views directly as to how the offence has affected them and what would be effective recompense [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-28].

The secondary victim in the eyes of Retributive Justice is the aforementioned victim of the offence whom the state has succeeded as principle victim. They are disempowered by the state with no say in the disposal [Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:40-43] and also risk damage to their reputation through association with the outcome [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:26 & Muncie et al 2005:75]. RJ places those who are affected by the ripple effect of the offence in the role of secondary victim. RJ promotes a society that is balanced on a relationship of mutual needs. An offence therefore upsets the balance of these and makes secondary victims out of the peripheral society surrounding the victim [Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:41].

Regarding the offender, the current (retributive) system characterises and treats the offender as ‘the other’ apart from society that functions by the rules [Graham, P & Clarke, J in Muncie & McLaughlin 2002:175]. Once they are enveloped by the CJS the offender is represented by a member of the system and so therefore distanced from the proceedings [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-23 & Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:41]. There is no real attempt to encourage the offender to analyse their actions with a view to understanding them or give an honest account of their motivations [Braithwaite, J (1989) McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399] or to have input on the disposal.

Conversely RJ treats the offender as the origin of the harm but not as an outsider. They are given the ability to participate in the proceedings directly, to communicate with the victim, to express their thoughts and motivations including remorse and to contribute to discussions on reparations [Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:40-43].

As mentioned the community’s role as a mediation tool between wider networks of families and individuals and to proffer support to the victim in RJ is given credence by socio/anthropological studies. Alongside of this it is utilised as a self regulatory body to ensure the democracy of any responses to offences [Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:40-43].Under the current system the community; be it that of the offender, the victim or the area of the offence has no role.

The overall comparative systems for controlling and operating justice as prescribed by both theories differ considerably. The current CJS is a state managed system that takes possession of conflicts [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-23] and conducts the proceedings in an adversarial manner [Muncie et al 2005:73], it is inherently masculine, staffed and directed by a male majority [Gelsthorpe, L in McLaughlin & Muncie 2001:116-120 & Harris, MK (1991) in McLaughlin et al 2003:31-39]. The outcomes of cases are decided by professional parties with the victim having been alleviated of the intellectual property of the offence being given no say in potential outcomes, neither is the victim given a chance to illustrate the emotional dimension of the offence. The CJS does not attempt to rationalise with the offender about their motivation for the offence and any subsequent remorse is not regarded as particularly relevant [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-28].

The Restorative Justice System (RJS) provides an effective counter point, it proposes returning the power to the victim and having professional experts on hand to guide but not to run the system [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:27] with interaction between the victim and the offender overseen by community representatives [Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:41-42].

The outcomes of the two respective systems differ too. The CJS/ Retributive system takes the offender out of society to punish them [Muncie, J in McLaughlin & Muncie 2001:158-196] whether it is punishment, treatment or rehabilitation. This punishment is individual to the offender because of the advocacy of the respective professionals involved in the case [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-26]. The RJ theory champions the idea of sanctions that are enacted within and alongside the community where the offender is not stigmatised as an ‘other’ but through their reparative ‘punishment’ comes to become a positive part of the community [Braithwaite, J (1989) in McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399, Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-28 & Zehr, H & Mika, H (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:41-42].

RJ is a system whereby the community guided by professionals are able to manage their own localised justice system dealing with issues that affect them directly and indirectly.

Part 2: Restorative conferencing, young offenders and the community.

The RJ system correlates overlapping concerns regarding treatment and rights of victims of crime and those who have concerns for the interests of offenders (especially young offenders) in particular the incidental negative factors of custodial sentences as well as the general negative factors such disposals have on ‘unhardened’ offenders [Muncie et al (2005) 81]. Whilst it is not utilised for (or recommended for) prosecution of hardened offenders or against serious crimes, RJ is regarded as effective for use in situations of petty crime, which further reinforces its suitability for young offenders [Muncie et al (2005) 84]. RJ proposes a solution to both offending in the micro-study single incident/case concept and also to reduce the likelihood of recidivism by improving and developing the social cohesion –the lack of which is a proposed source of youth offending in the first place [Muncie et al 2005:82 & Braithwaite, J (1989) in McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399].

The process itself takes different forms in different parts of the world where it has been utilised. The most frequently used formats are the following.

Circle sentencing, where a presiding figure opens the proceedings and then each person involved is allowed to speak separately in turn usually commencing with the victim [Bazemore, G & Taylor-Grifiths, C McLaughlin et al 2003:79].

Family Group Conferencing (FCG), a script is adhered to by a coordinator where an offender speaks first followed by the victim and others affected or participating in the process [Bazemore, G & Taylor-Grifiths, C McLaughlin et al 2003:79].

Victim- Offender mediation, this system unlike the previous two is neither directed towards establishing consensus or utilises a script. Instead a mediator simply encourages dialogue between the offender and the victim [Bazemore, G & Taylor-Grifiths, C McLaughlin et al 2003:79].

The FCG is the most widely used pattern of RJ administration, it facilitates a formal meeting of all parties affected by the offence including the wider circle of both the victim and the offender’s family and friends to establish the different sets of needs and interests.

By utilising the FCG format in the application of RJ there are proclaimed advantages. The proceedings take place in a more familiar environment without the formal atmosphere of a court house. Neither the victim nor the offender have to rely on a lawyer, they can instead represent themselves and give their own testimony as they see it. The absence of the formal trappings of the state means that disputes can be handled more swiftly at a time and place agreeable to all participants. Through being given the right to represent themselves the victim is able to highlight their own feelings of hurt from their own personal perspective including the impact of the offence on them physically and emotionally. They are then able to directly question the offender over their motivation and other matters troubling them and therefore establish closure. To further aid the closure victims are able to establish what it is that would contribute towards establishing a suitable level of repair to the damage or hurt caused to them. [Muncie et al (2005) 84].

Offenders in turn via the FCG process are able to create a human link with the victim and therefore through interaction with them take responsibility for their actions. In turn they are then able to offer an explanation for what motivated the action in the first place and highlight any potential unknown dimension to the situation. [Muncie et al (2005) 84].

The end result of the FCG system of RJ is to then produce a sense of regret on the part of the offender that prompts an apology and some form or reparative amends to be established and then carried out by the offender. [Muncie et al (2005) 84].

Part 3: Critical issues.

The introduction and use of RJ on the recommendation of academics is a sensitive issue due to the fact that system would (if introduced thoroughly) affect a great many people and be under scrutiny by the press and public opinion. As a general concept RJ utilises a mix of other concepts from numerous theories. By trying to be many things to many people it does also present many aspects and areas for criticism to those who prefer or have developed more specific theories of justice.

Whilst RJ introduces a more victim focussed procedure, those concerned with victim’s rights do not find it to be entirely satisfactory. The offender has to be willing to admit their guilt for the RJS to begin to work [McLaughlin et al 2003:44]. The harm suffered by the victim may not be recognised by the victim or be communicable, likewise there may not be any form of meaningful reparation that the offender can make [Muncie et al 2005:85]. The concept of crime being a conflict of interests [De Haan, W (1991) in McLaughlin et al 2004:387] therefore a cue for dialogue can result in a negative outcome should the victim find themselves being guided or coerced into taking shared responsibility for the event. Similarly should the process establish a less tangible compensatory outcome of the event the victim may feel unsatisfied [Muncie et al 2005:85]. A combative or non-participatory offender could also result in the victim feeling further victimised and possibly humiliated in public [Muncie et al 2005:85].

The inspiration for the RJS and the contributory theories leading to it are often taken from other societies and ethnographic areas as diverse as Japan [Braithwaite, J (1989) in McLaughlin et al 2004:393-399], The Netherlands [De Haan, W (1991) in McLaughlin et al 2004:381-392], Tanzania [Christie, N (1977) in McLaughlin et al 2003:22-28], Australia [Muncie et al 2005:85] and Maori New Zealand [Tauri, J & Morriss, A (1997) in McLaughlin et al 2003:44-53]. These sample studies do grant insights into possibilities and ideas, but it is important to consider the cultural differences between our society and those. Whilst the Restorative system proposes that it can help to develop and rebuild a fractured community/society the wholesale transplantation of the ideas from the case studies would be unlikely prior to the development of a community to host and take responsibility for them.

The issue of overall responsibility and guidance has been addressed in Australia where the system was overseen by the Police and utilised to address young offenders [Muncie et al 2005:85-86]. Similarly this model was then copied in parts of the UK where it has been studied [Young, R & Gould, B (1999) in McLaughlin et al 2003:94-104 & Dignan, J & Marsh, P (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:105-116]. Utilising the Police to direct RJ proceedings does lend it an authoritative credence, however ‘old habits die hard’ and the transition of the officers involved from their traditional retributive perspective to the new integrative method of restorative justice presented problems. Police officers lead the proceedings as opposed to contribute evenly alongside other parties and shaming is utilised as a retributive force [Young, R & Gould, B (1999) in McLaughlin et al 2003:96]. As directors of the proceedings Police officers have represented the views of absent victims [Young, R & Gould, B (1999) in McLaughlin et al 2003:97] which in turn destroys another element of the traditional RJS.

Overall a Police lead RJS whilst having good intentions presents too many problems from the clash of cultures with the RJ ethos contradicting the traditional authoritative role of the Police. The outcome of this leaves young offenders being intimidated by the adults involved as opposed to feeling included in the proceedings. By involving the Police in a leading role in what should be a community lead system also causes problems as minor issues start to float into the Police domain and the net of Police knowledge and interference becomes wider [Muncie et al 2005:85-86, Umbreit, M & Zehr, H in McLaughlin et al 2003:69-75 & Bazemore, G &Taylor Griffiths, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:76-93].

Where RJ has been applied in the UK studies have found a number of variables with regards to measuring outcomes. This presents problems for efficient monitoring and assessment of RJ. Due to it’s cognitive and emotional effects RJ’s outcomes for offenders are difficult to tangibly pinpoint or prove, if an offender has simply learnt how to respond appropriately to the situation and outcomes are simply being judged on the offender’s oral response in an interview there is no guarantee that RJ has had any effect [Muncie et al 2005:88]. As with all studies of methods of punishment the micro study of recidivism presents pitfalls for assessing RJ as there is no way of comparing what the recidivist rate of the offender would have been had they not partaken of RJ.

RJ’s victim centred organisation implies that assessment of RJ would be better made through studies of victim satisfaction with the outcomes [Muncie et al 2005:87]. Although this on its own would only tell half the story due to the other participants. Similarly a more pragmatic comparison of cost effectiveness with the CJS would render results but these would say little about the driving ethos behind RJ [Dignan, J & Marsh, P (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:105-116].

Criticism has been levelled at RJ with regards to the lack of attention to smaller groups within the community and how gender-groups need to have attention paid to them too. The driving ethos being that offenders confer with members of their community to meet a solution means that there is the potential (if gender balances are not addressed) for different genders to not be addressed evenly. [Muncie et al 2005:88-89 & Adler, C (2000) in McLaughlin et al 2003:117-126]. Similarly the offence may be related to breaking of gender barriers or roles and the RJ target of establishing social cohesion may not be appropriate in these cases as it effectively involves the offender becoming victimised by a system that is set up to do the opposite [Muncie et al 2005:89 & Adler, C (2000) in McLaughlin et al 2003:117-126].

There are also wider macro criticisms of RJ coming from pure strains of criminological theory that are interested in proposing systems for the administration of justice themselves and take issue with the ideals of RJ and challenge it to provide solutions to the problems that they answer.

Whilst Social Justice (SJ) provides a great deal of the skeleton structure of the RJS it does still take issue with certain aspects of RJ. Whilst the core tenets of SJ are to create an even social playing field and to eliminate the inequalities that shift the balance of fairness and justice within society such as sexism, racism and classicism it is proposed that RJ does little to address these issues [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:157-163]. Instead RJ simply works in a micro environment dealing with individual cases and operates within (as SJ views it) a socially corrupt system [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:157-158]. Opposition to RJ is voiced by SJ with regards to the possible social amalgamation of different indigenous cultures and ideals by RJ, as mentioned before the cultural studies and influences of RJ come from a wealth of cultures and by taking bits and pieces from each and then effectively trying to sell it back to them RJ robs these cultures of their own heritage and furthers the risk of monoculturism alongside of administrative re-colonisation [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:158-159]. Echoing the thoughts already mentioned in this essay SJ raises concerns about the fact that certain smaller sub groups (women and Children) within the wider community are not served appropriately by RJ. Issues that have had their seriousness in the eyes of the courts forcibly raised over the last twenty years (e.g. domestic violence) may still not be necessarily regarded as so serious by the general community represented in the RJ system especially if it is disproportionately dominated by men, therefore Women and Children may not find themselves getting as fair treatment or satisfactory outcome as they would through other justice systems [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:158-159. Whilst RJ is intended to be a positive force, SJ proponents highlight the fact that it is being used as an alternative (especially with young offenders [Muncie et al 2005:81]) to a more harsh and long term affecting system (the retributive CJS) to avoid the offender coming to any incidental harm (rape, assault development of a drug problem) whilst they are serving their punishment. This ‘reduction of harm’ is a noble sentiment, but it does little to help the victims of the offender feel satisfied. Likewise whilst the offender may be being diverted from an unnecessarily harsh environment by RJ criticisms are voiced from an SJ perspective that there is still too little being done to genuinely aid the offender to better themselves and therefore eliminate the social injustice trigger for offending in the first place [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:160-161]. SJ proponents find much to argue about over RJ with different interpretations being made about the outcomes and the intentions of RJ, this in itself presents another criticism in that there is no clear moral line in the RJ process [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:161-162].

The current existing Criminal Justice System (CJS) as already referred to is a retributive system with an ethos based around maintaining the pre-existing social order; it is administered via professionals and experts who are guided by legal precedent and official definitions (black letter law). The main concerns of the proponents of the CJS are that cases should be heard and assessed by an independent and impartial set of bodies and that RJ takes administration and ownership of the proceedings out of the hands of the state [Ashworth, A (2001), McLaughlin et al 2003:168-171]. The ownership of the proceedings and the consequent rights of the participants are not clearly defined enough within RJ for the proponents of the CJS, the lines become too blurred between offender and the victim with the RJ competing issues theory [Ashworth, A (2001), McLaughlin et al 2003:171-174]. Similarly the lack of administrative support or precedent with regard to disposals is raised as a shortcoming of RJ with there being little attention paid to a standard punishment in relation to an offence [Ashworth, A (2001), McLaughlin et al 2003:172-173]. The role of the victim in RJ is a frequent point of criticism by CJS proponents. Along with their input into disposals creating a lack of standardisation in what could be very similar cases, their claim for reparations made directly to the ‘court’ within the process as opposed to being awarded an amount of compensation judged suitable by a neutral party is a concern. Similarly the victim may be overzealous in their presentations and as a result a fair hearing may not ensue and injustices may develop [Ashworth, A (2001), McLaughlin et al 2003:172-173]. The RJS is judged by the CJS proponents to be in need of the crutch of the CJS in order to function and to avoid the above problems by having input from respective experts, therefore the concept of RJ as a standalone alternative is judged as unlikely in the eyes of the CJS [Ashworth, A (2001), McLaughlin et al 2003:173-177].

The bracket of Alternative Justice (AJ) has via its advocates presented criticisms of the RJS. Similar to the above criticisms from the CJS, AJ perceives RJ as an add-on to the pre-existing CJS and not a viable new genre of justice administration [Daly, K (2002) C in McLaughlin et al 2003:197-200]. A lot of AJ’s core arguments with RJ have already been mentioned in this essay due to the contributing ideologies being similar to that of SJ and also under the umbrella of general criticisms such as the involvement of the Police and the potential for the expansion of state interference into a community based system [Cunneen, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:183-184, Muncie et al 2005:85-86, Umbreit, M & Zehr, H in McLaughlin et al 2003:69-75 & Bazemore, G &Taylor Griffiths, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:76-93]. The collection of several theories of punishment that can be found by examining RJ outcomes present grounds for criticism by AJ proponents [Cunneen, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:184-185] whereby no definitive philosophy of disposal can be pinpointed. Another AJ criticism echoes that of the SJ proponents in that RJ can be utilised as a source of cultural globalisation [Cunneen, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:185], similarly imbalances of structure and power between sub-groups within a community (as referred to in the context of women and children in SJ) are perceived as unaddressed in RJ by the proponents of AJ [Cunneen, C in McLaughlin et al 2003:185-186]. The supposed ‘back to basics’ socio-cultural historical credence of RJ is questioned by AJ similarly to SJ’s proposition of RJ’s orientalism [Braithwaite, J in McLaughlin et al 2003:158] with there being little evidence to back it up [Daly, K (2002) C in McLaughlin et al 2003:200-202]. Similarly attempts to present RJ as a ‘feminine’ alternative to the masculine CJS are dismissed by AJ as simplistic and meaningless [Daly, K (2002) C in McLaughlin et al 2003:202-204]. Because it is still developing, tales of positive outcomes from RJ are perceived by proponents of AJ as simply being ill-researched ‘spin’ to encourage faith in a new system [Daly, K (2002) C in McLaughlin et al 2003:204-209].

The concept of Community Justice (Com’J) is one that is often confused with the idea of RJ, Com’J is concerned with the wider development of the community as a response to the outcomes of justice as opposed to RJ’s focus which is based purely around expressive dialogue contained within the conference process itself [Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:215-216 & Muncie et al 2005:98-99]. The proponents of Com’J criticise RJ for being unconnected with the physical community environment and providing little scope for change and development of the community. In short Com’J calls for conflicts to be resolved within the wider community and not just by those directly affected by the offence [Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:218-219]. This community is a more socially integrated representation of the area and it’s stakeholders [Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:220-221] which in turn places value on the (often cross cultural) beliefs of different members of the community [Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:220-224]. The social development promised by Com’J of developing more integrated communities with a developed sense of liberal consciousness and egalitarianism [Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) in McLaughlin et al 2003:223-225] is a challenge to RJ’s promises to create more functional societies and communities through the rationalisation of conflict.

Conclusion.

Restorative Justice as a theory is highly contentious for purist criminological thinkers, however as a policy (as opposed to a purely academic theory) much like the current retributive system RJ has been shaped by different inputs. So can RJ develop to form an efficient mode of justice as long as it is carefully maintained and guided from a neutral informed perspective that has fully ‘bought into’ the ethos of RJ. It is appropriate for use with young offenders as an alternative to feeding them into a system that may well have a more negative and fare reaching affect on their whole lives as RJ offers the chance for offenders to both develop as people and to learn about and become part of their own community which they may have previously felt excluded from.

Bibliography

Adler, C (2000) “Young Women Offenders and the Challenge for Restorative Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Ashworth, A (2001) “Is Restorative Justice the Way Forward for Criminal Justice”, McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Bazemore, G &Taylor Griffiths, C (Federal Probation, Vol’ 61 #2) “Conferences, Circles, Boardsand Mediations: The ‘New wave’ of Cumminity Justice Decisionmaking” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Braithwaite, J (1997) “Restorative Justice and a Better Future” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Braithwaite, J (Saskatchewan Law Review, Vol’ 63, #1) “Restorative Justice & Social Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Christie, N (1977) “Conflicts as Property” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L. Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage.

Crawford, A & Clear, TA (2001) “Community Justice: Transforming Communities through Restorative Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage.

Cunneen, C (2003) “Thinking Critically about Restorative Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Daly, K (2002) “Restorative Justice: The real story” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L. Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage.

Dignan, J & Marsh, P (2001) “Restorative Justice & Family Group Conferences in England: Current State and Future Prospects” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Gelsthorpe, L, (2001) “Critical Descisions & Processes in the Criminal Courts” in McLaughlin, E & Muncie, J (2001) Controlling Crime London Sage

Graham, P & Clarke, J (2002) “Dangerous Places, Crime and the City” in Muncie, J & McLaughlin, E (2002) The Problem of Crime London Sage

Harris, MK (1991) “Moving into the New Millennium: Towards a Feminist Vision of Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

McLaughlin, E, Muncie, J, Hughes, G & Westmarland, L Eds (2003) Theory Guide 2, Crime Control Open University

Muncie J, McLaughlin, E (2005) Crime, Order & social Control Course Guide. The Open University.

Tauri, J & Morriss, A (1997) in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, 2003 Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Umbreit, M & Zehr, H (Federal Probation Vol 60, # 3) “Restorative Family Group Conferences: Differing Modles & Guidelines for Practise” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Young, R & Gould, B (1999) “Restorative Police Cautioning in Aylesbury – from Degrading to Reintegrative Shaming Ceremonies” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, 2003 Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage

Zehr, U & Mika, H (1997) “Fundamental Concepts in Restorative Justice” in McLaughlin, E, Fergusson, R, Hughes, G, Westmarland, L Eds, (2003) Restorative Justice Critical Issues. London Sage