Ninety-five percent of all offenders are released, most of whom return to family members who have suffered greatly from their loved one's criminal behavior; yet, research on their victimization and trauma is rare. Additionally, families anticipate a role in the offender's reintegration; however, little research has explored their own recovery and insights on their reintegrative efforts. This qualitative phenomenological study sought to discover a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of 13 offender family members in Texas. Participants were recruited through community organizations and selected through a purposeful sampling strategy to ensure diversity. The data were collected through screening and face-to-face interviews and analyzed through iterative hand coding and thematic development, supported by secondary coding review and participant verification. Concepts explored included victimization within a trauma-informed environment, whereby support systems understand the impact of trauma on individuals and reintegration within a restorative justice model, which aims to restore individual and community trust. Results found that participants voiced consistent themes of victimization, presented effective coping mechanisms and overall continued relationships with friends, family members, and the community. Findings also showed that participants anticipated roles of both emotional and instrumental support and reported an interest in their involvement with a restorative justice option for the offender upon his reentry. The findings draw no definitive conclusions on the degree of family member victimization but do promote social change for developing policies that collaboratively engage family members within the judicial and reentry process to reduce recidivism.

Conferencing is a Restorative Justice practice operating in juvenile justice systems in Australia. Some conferences are convened by police, despite research demonstrating that ethnic minority youth often view police as biased or untrustworthy. Justice research in evaluative legal procedures indicates that perceived third party bias and outcomes delivered by a third party affect fairness judgments. Many disputants regard conferences as more fair than court. However, psychological mechanisms underlying fairness judgments in conferences, where offenders participate in outcome decisions, have not been directly investigated. This research program examined the effects of outcome and perceived convenor bias on procedural and distributive justice ratings in conferencing. Past research indicates that people high and low on Hofstede??s power-distance dimension differ in their emphases on outcome and third party bias when forming fairness judgments. This thesis investigated whether power-distance moderated the interactive effect of trust and outcome on fairness judgments in conferences. Study 1 established power-distance variation in a university sample, and similarity with a community sample on perceived police bias. Study 2 confirmed that high power-distance people who consider police biased against them may nonetheless choose to participate in police-convened conferences. Studies 3 and 4 extended previous research examining interactive effects of trust and outcome on justice judgments in evaluative procedures, investigating whether power-distance moderated this effect. No significant effects of power-distance and trust emerged, but the findings demonstrated the importance of outcome fairness (correspondence between outcomes and beliefs) in determining procedural justice. Studies 5, 6 and 7 extended this investigation to conferencing procedures. Studies 6 and 7 employed a computer-simulation, allowing participants to interact with a conference transcript and select outcomes, thereby investigating the effects of trust and power-distance on outcome choice, as well as the effects of trust, power-distance, and outcome on justice evaluations. Studies 5 and 6 were unsuccessful in manipulating bias by varying convenor identity (police versus civilian). Study 7 successfully manipulated bias according to convenor behaviour and revealed that third party bias in conferencing affected outcome choices but not fairness judgments. Results are discussed in terms of implications for culturally-relevant police practices, procedural justice theory and conferencing policy.

No description available.

This thesis explores the recent introduction of restorative justice into the youth justice system in England. It examines the historical and political context from which current youth justice policies have emerged and aims to evaluate how this new system is functioning 'on the ground' several years after being implemented. Specifically, the primary aim of the research is to investigate final warnings and referral orders. The findings are based on an in-depth study of one Youth Offending Team (YOT). The research adopted a predominantly qualitative, case study based method utilizing techniques of observation, informal conversations, formal interviews with the young offenders and their supporters as well as with authority figures who are amongst those responsible for policy and practice in the youth justice system. The substantive chapters of this thesis focus on the delivery of final warnings, referral order panel meetings, victim participation, and the structural, cultural and political influences on YOT practice. This research concludes that at present, restorative practices in England are seriously compromised. However, simply because these programmes experience difficulties, they should not necessarily be considered a failure. The present failures in practice are not related to the philosophical foundation of these programmes or even to the way in which they have been set up. Rather, the current shortcomings in practice are due mostly to a failure of implementation on the part of the YOT. The final warning and referral order programmes, if improved, have the potential to become an effective first encounter with the criminal justice system and to impact positively on many first time offenders.

Conferencing is a Restorative Justice practice operating in juvenile justice systems in Australia. Some conferences are convened by police, despite research demonstrating that ethnic minority youth often view police as biased or untrustworthy. Justice research in evaluative legal procedures indicates that perceived third party bias and outcomes delivered by a third party affect fairness judgments. Many disputants regard conferences as more fair than court. However, psychological mechanisms underlying fairness judgments in conferences, where offenders participate in outcome decisions, have not been directly investigated. This research program examined the effects of outcome and perceived convenor bias on procedural and distributive justice ratings in conferencing. Past research indicates that people high and low on Hofstede??s power-distance dimension differ in their emphases on outcome and third party bias when forming fairness judgments. This thesis investigated whether power-distance moderated the interactive effect of trust and outcome on fairness judgments in conferences. Study 1 established power-distance variation in a university sample, and similarity with a community sample on perceived police bias. Study 2 confirmed that high power-distance people who consider police biased against them may nonetheless choose to participate in police-convened conferences. Studies 3 and 4 extended previous research examining interactive effects of trust and outcome on justice judgments in evaluative procedures, investigating whether power-distance moderated this effect. No significant effects of power-distance and trust emerged, but the findings demonstrated the importance of outcome fairness (correspondence between outcomes and beliefs) in determining procedural justice. Studies 5, 6 and 7 extended this investigation to conferencing procedures. Studies 6 and 7 employed a computer-simulation, allowing participants to interact with a conference transcript and select outcomes, thereby investigating the effects of trust and power-distance on outcome choice, as well as the effects of trust, power-distance, and outcome on justice evaluations. Studies 5 and 6 were unsuccessful in manipulating bias by varying convenor identity (police versus civilian). Study 7 successfully manipulated bias according to convenor behaviour and revealed that third party bias in conferencing affected outcome choices but not fairness judgments. Results are discussed in terms of implications for culturally-relevant police practices, procedural justice theory and conferencing policy.

Thesis (M.A.)--Humboldt State University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 173-179). Also available via Humboldt Digital Scholar.

In this paper, I argue that we can identify policies that can increase victim satisfaction with traditional criminal justice systems through analyzing factors that increase victim satisfaction with restorative justice process. First, this paper defines key terms, including “restorative justice,” “traditional criminal justice systems” and “victim.” Next, it analyzes the current literature and identifies why increasing victim satisfaction in traditional criminal justice systems is important. Third, it looks at the state of victim satisfaction with traditional criminal justice systems, and identifies factors that contribute to low satisfaction. Fourth, this paper analyzes the literature examining restorative justice and victim satisfaction, and identifies key factors within restorative justice processes that improve victim satisfaction. Finally, having identified the problems with the traditional criminal justice system and the best practices within restorative justice systems, I propose a number of process changes for traditional criminal justice systems that could increase victim satisfaction.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

A proposta desta pesquisa baseia-se num diálogo entre Psicanálise e Direito, através da função do testemunho na Justiça Restaurativa. Para tanto, primeiramente aponta algumas das principais problemáticas na articulação dessas duas áreas, através de autores da psicanálise, principalmente. Em seguida, realiza uma breve contextualização da crítica sobre o desenvolvimento do sistema jurídico (com M. Foucault) e da questão da penalidade e a partir daí contextualiza a proposta Justiça Restaurativa. Dessa proposta, depreende a questão do perdão e da culpa, aqui abordados pelo viés da psicanálise e da filosofia (com J. Derrida e H. Arent) e aponta, ainda, para questões advindas da filosofia do Direito (através de F. Ost), como sobre o lugar de Juiz, entre outras. Por fim, sublinha a questão da performatividade dos atos de fala, critica a função do testemunho e suas relações com a memória, com a história e, ainda, com a Utopia. Como metodologia, se vale da pesquisa em psicanálise. / This research's proposition is based on a dialogue between Psychoanalysis and Law, through the testimony's functions on Restorative Justice. Therefore, primarily it points some of the main articulational issues of both areas, through psychoanalysis authors, principally. After, it does a brief critical contexting about the development of the law system (with M. Foucault) and of the matter of penalty and based on this it contexts the proposition of Restorative Justice. From this proposition, it infers the matters of forgiveness and guilt, boarded from the perspective of psychoanalysis and philosophy (with J. Derrida and H. Arent) and points, although, to matters come from Law's philosophy (through F. Ost), as the place of the Judge, among others. Finally, it underlines the matter of the performactivity of the speeching act, criticizes the testimony's function and its relations to memory, to history, and even to Utopia. As methodology, it exploits of the psychoanalysis' research.

Can punishment, a practice which involves the deliberate infliction of suffering, be justified? Retributivists and consequentialists argue that punishment can be justified, whereas abolitionists argue that it cannot. Retributivists argue that punishment is justified because wrongdoers deserve it, whereas punishment is justified for consequentialists because it is beneficial for society. A popular form of abolitionism is restorative justice, which is the view that all those affected by crime (perpetrators, victims and members of society) should be reconciled. In this thesis I argue that retributivist justifications for punishment are mistaken, and argue in favour of a consequentialist view. I also argue that consequentialism can accommodate the valuable features of restorative justice while avoiding the challenges faced by it. My arguments against retributivism will turn on a thought experiment. The experiment is designed to draw out the fundamental retributivist intuition that people who cause harm deserve to suffer harm in return, yet excludes most of the principles retributivists would use to justify the intuition. I will go on to argue that, even if the retributivist considerations did apply to the experiment, they would still not justify the claim that wrongdoers deserve to be punished. Most of the retributivist considerations are, therefore, not necessary for the intuition, and none of the considerations are sufficient for it. The retributivist considerations are, I contend, rationalisations, as the claim that wrongdoers deserve to suffer is based, not on good reasons, but on an unreliable intuition. I shall argue that the consequentialist considerations, while not being necessary, are sufficient for the claim that wrongdoers should be punished, and they should be punished, I maintain, in the interests of preventing greater harm from occurring.