Skip navigation
Skip navigation

Are restorative justice conferences more fair than criminal courts? comparing levels of observed procedural justice in the reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE)

Barnes, G. C.; Hyatt, J. M.; Angel, C. M.; Strang, H.; Sherman, L. W.

Description

The reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE) were conducted in Canberra, Australia, between 1995 and 2000. RISE compared the effects of standard court proceedings to restorative justice (RJ)–focused diversionary conferences (DCs) with juvenile, young adult, and adult offenders who had been arrested for personal property, shoplifting, violent, or drunk driving offenses. We evaluated, using observational data, the effect of RJ conferences on objective procedural justice. We find that the DCs...[Show more]

dc.contributor.authorBarnes, G. C.
dc.contributor.authorHyatt, J. M.
dc.contributor.authorAngel, C. M.
dc.contributor.authorStrang, H.
dc.contributor.authorSherman, L. W.
dc.date.accessioned2015-05-13T02:55:45Z
dc.date.available2015-05-13T02:55:45Z
dc.identifier.issn0887-4034
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/13463
dc.description.abstractThe reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE) were conducted in Canberra, Australia, between 1995 and 2000. RISE compared the effects of standard court proceedings to restorative justice (RJ)–focused diversionary conferences (DCs) with juvenile, young adult, and adult offenders who had been arrested for personal property, shoplifting, violent, or drunk driving offenses. We evaluated, using observational data, the effect of RJ conferences on objective procedural justice. We find that the DCs produced significantly higher levels of offender engagement within the adjudicative process and higher levels of ethical treatment, and that, when compared with standard trials, conduct within the conferences was attuned to the reintegrative shaming (RIS) process. These results reinforce the previous RISE findings by providing evidence that the conferencing process, as delivered, was in keeping with the overall goals of RJ and supports the prior attribution of RISE’s effectiveness to the RJ process.
dc.description.sponsorshipThe author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by Grant #70517 from the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation's Public Health Law program. Supporters of the original RISE project included the Criminology Research Council (Australia), the Australian National University, and the National Institute of Justice (United States).
dc.format28 pages
dc.publisherSAGE Publications (UK and US)
dc.rights© 2013 SAGE Publications
dc.sourceCriminal Justice Policy Review
dc.subjectrecidivism
dc.subjectsentencing
dc.subjectcriminal court
dc.subjectjustice
dc.subjectprogram evaluation
dc.titleAre restorative justice conferences more fair than criminal courts? comparing levels of observed procedural justice in the reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE)
dc.typeJournal article
local.identifier.citationvolume26
dc.date.issued2015
local.identifier.absfor160200 - CRIMINOLOGY
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB1019
local.publisher.urlhttp://www.uk.sagepub.com/
local.type.statusPublished Version
local.contributor.affiliationStrang, Heather J., CAP Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), The Australian National University
local.identifier.essn1552-3586
local.bibliographicCitation.issue2
local.bibliographicCitation.startpage103
local.bibliographicCitation.lastpage130
local.identifier.doi10.1177/0887403413512671
dc.date.updated2015-12-10T09:49:47Z
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-84922646204
CollectionsANU Research Publications

Download

There are no files associated with this item.


Items in Open Research are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

Updated:  17 November 2022/ Responsible Officer:  University Librarian/ Page Contact:  Library Systems & Web Coordinator