Anger Management (AQA A Level Psychology): Revision Note

The use of restorative justice to change behaviour

• Restorative justice (RJ) refers to the processes by which both offender and victim may find some sense of ‘closure’ and reconciliation beyond the restrictions of the prison regime

• RJ is rehabilitative in aim and intent rather than punitive, as it allows the victim to speak about the impact of the crime on them, which in turn should enlighten the offender as to the harm that their actions have caused

• RJ allows crime victims to take an active role in dealing with what happened to them, i.e., they don’t have to feel victimised but instead they are encouraged to feel that they are controlling the narrative

• The offender may feel that they are not just a ‘number’ in the criminal justice system: their sense of self and autonomy come to the fore during RJ sessions and force them to focus on how they have ended up in prison 

• The offender should begin to understand that their actions have consequences and that they can choose their actions

• The key elements of the RJ process can be summarised as the five Rs as follows:

  • Relationship: the offender has damaged the relationship not only with the victim but with society, so it is necessary for the offender to feel accountable for their actions so that the relationship can be healed

  • Respect: all participants in the RJ process should show respect towards each other; this is achieved via active listening and trying to understand the perspective of the other person

  • Responsibility: the offender must take responsibility for their actions, even if the harm inflicted on the victim was unintentional

  • Repair: the offender must do what they can to repair the damage they have done (either practically and/or emotionally), and the victim must banish thoughts of revenge and punishment and instead embrace forgiveness)

  • Reintegration: the offender becomes part of the community and is accepted by that community, with the emphasis on positive, active outcomes 

• RJ can be conducted face-to-face or via letters or other remote means

• The offender may attempt to make amends via replacing money stolen from the victim, helping them to repair what they broke during a burglary or other less tangible reparations, e.g., helping out on a community project

Research which investigates restorative justice

• Sherman et al. (2007) – a review of research into RJ across several countries, including the UK, USA, Australia, and Canada, found that RJ reduced reoffending rates in offenders who had been convicted of violent crimes  

• Latimer et al. (2005) – a meta-analysis of studies that compared RJ to traditional offender rehabilitation programmes found that  RJ is more effective, but as the participants were all self-selecting, this could bias the findings somewhat

Evaluation of restorative justice

Strengths

• RJ is inherently flexible: it can be amended, modified or shaped to fit each crime/victim/offender

• Victims’ mental health improved after they had voiced their emotions and expressed the impact that the crime had had on their lives (Sherman and Strang, 2007)

Limitations

• RJ is not appropriate or suitable for all types of crime: in cases of domestic abuse, the offender coming face to face with the victim may perpetuate the trauma for the victim and give the offender another chance to assert power and dominance over the victim

• RJ is expensive and time-consuming and requires a highly skilled, trained mediator to run the sessions; thus, it is unlikely to be available to everyone who needs it

Issues & Debates

• Restorative justice assumes that offenders can take personal responsibility for their actions and choose to make amends, supporting the idea of free will

  • This contrasts with deterministic explanations (e.g., biological), which suggest behaviour is out of the offender’s control

• While traditional punishment systems apply universal rules (nomothetic), restorative justice takes an idiographic approach

  • It tailors the process to the individual circumstances of the victim and offender for a more personal, context-specific resolution