Reference: 

Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2004). Restorative Justice: What we know and how we know it. Philadelphia, PA: Jerry Lee Center of Criminology

 

Strategy:

Restorative justice

 

Matrix Dimensions:

  • X-axis: Individuals
  • Y-axis: General
  • Z-axis: Mostly Reactive

Results: 

  • Mixed
  • Conference fosters social solidarity compared to courts, leads to more apologies for victims and less desire for revenge; changes in repeat offending vary by crime type, demographics, and social setting

Methodological Rigor:

Highly rigorous- randomized experiment

 

Abstract:

(from NCJRS) The accumulated findings of randomized controlled trials on the effects of face-to-face restorative justice yield the following conclusions as of August 2004: criminal cases diverted from prosecution to restorative processes featuring face-to-face meetings between victims and offenders, when randomly assigned in comparison to either A) prosecution in court that can result in a criminal record, or B) other forms of diversion from formal prosecution of juvenile offenders that do not involve face-to-face meetings with crime victims, result in 1) Statistically significant and substantial benefits for crime victims, as measured by interviews with victims in-person or by telephone; 2) statistically significant and substantial reductions in repeat offending in some tests, in some social settings, with some demographic groups, as measured by police arrest or charge data; 3) statistically significant a substantial increases in repeat offending in other tests, tests, in some social settings, with some demographic groups, as measured by police arrest or charge data; 4) consistent and substantial reductions in crime victims’ stated desire for physically violent revenge against the offenders; 5) several tests and demographic comparisons in which RJ makes no statistically significant difference in repeat offending.