About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

69 Fed. Probation 15 (2005)
Restorative Justice Dialogue: The Impact of Mediation and Conferencing on Juvenile Recidivism

handle is hein.journals/fedpro69 and id is 67 raw text is: December 2005 15 The Imct o Meiaio and Cofre n on Juenl Recidivism THE DEVELOPMENT OF effective pro- grams and interventions to reduce juvenile recidivism is a national priority. Juvenile criminal offenses are a significant societal problem with great financial and social costs. Adolescent boys commit higher rates of criminal acts than any other age group and use much of the resources of youth ser- vices systems (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 1996). Antisocial behavior has significant negative emotional, physical, and financial effects on victims, their families, and communities. Child men- tal health, youth services, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems have been involved in providing a range of correctional, reha- bilitative, and psychological approaches to reduce juvenile recidivism. Traditionally, the juvenile justice system in the United States has been dominated by two different approaches in responding to juvenile offenses, the retributive justice model and the rehabilitation or treatment model. The retributive model defines a juve- nile offense as a crime against the state and the state provides suitable punishment to the offender. The assumption of the retribu- tive model is that punishment will deter future offenses. However, the retributive model often creates situations that increase the likelihood of further delinquent activ- ity (Crouch, 1993; Link, 1987; May & Pitts, 1999). The juvenile offender is also at high risk of lowered educational and occupational opportunities and delinquent behavior is a strong predictor that the offender himself will be victimized (Lauritsen, Laub, & Samp- son, 1991). The rehabilitative model focuses on the treatment of the offender with the assump- tion that interventions such as probation supervision, work readiness training, cogni- tive skills training, and behavior therapy will change behavior and reduce the frequency of juvenile offenses. Historically, however, there has been little evidence for the success of these methods in reducing recidivism. Henggleger (1989), in his review of two decades of juvenile justice system attempts to reduce recidivism, concluded that noth- ing works. Lipsey's (1995) meta-analysis of 400 outcome studies that involved 40,000 juvenile offenders showed only a small aver- age reduction of 10 percent in recidivism. Restorative justice is an increasingly important alternative approach to respond- ing to criminal offenses (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1995). While the retributive and rehabilitative models focus on the punish- ment or rehabilitation of the offender, they neglect the needs of the victims. In contrast, for hundreds of years, indigenous popula- tions in New Zealand, the United States, and Canada used rituals to bring together family and friends of both victims and offender to search for a resolution to the problem that was acceptable to all involved. Initial restor- ative justice programs focused largely on victim offender mediation and on provid- ing restitution to victims. The conceptual- ization of restorative justice has expanded both its initial formulation and program services over the last 20 years with a broader range of policies and practices being adapted by an increasing number of jurisdictions (Bazemore & Schiff, 2001; Umbreit, Coates & Voss, 2002). Restorative justice assumes William Bradshaw, Ph.D. University of Minnesota David Roseborough, MSW University of St. Thomas that criminal offenses are first a violation of people and relationships and not just in the domain of the state. The restorative model reconceptualizes the purpose of justice by focusing on the three major stakehold- ers in the process of restoration and heal- ing: the victim, offender, and community (Zehr, 2002). The aim of restorative justice is to repair the harm done by the crime by bringing together the people most affected by the offense to determine how to deal with the offence. Dialogue, reparation, and account- ability are critical components of all restorative interventions (Bazemore, 1996; Umbreit, 2000; Zehr, 1990). This process aims to benefit victim, offender, and the community. The victims are able to express their feelings, get questions answered regard- ing the crime, and have input into the repa- ration plan. The offender is held personally accountable in providing restitution and the restorative process also promotes the sup- port and reintegration of the victim and offender into the community. There are currently three types of uniquely restorative justice dialogue pro- grams that receive a good deal of attention: victim-offender mediation, family group conferencing, and peacemaking circles. Vic- tim-offender mediation (VOM) is the most established intervention model of the restor- ative justice movement, with more than 1300 VOM programs in 18 countries (Umbreit & Greenwood, 1999). The practice of VOM is grounded in restorative justice theory that emphasizes that crime first should be per- ceived as an act against individuals within the context of community. While not deny-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most