Does Restorative Justice Affect Recidivism?
The methods used in the conventional justice system may deter the offender from committing further crimes, but it does neither repair the harm caused, nor help them acknowledge their responsibility, instead it stigmatises them, worsening the situation instead of improving it.
They communicate that they understand what they did was wrong and they try to repair the harm whether through apologizing to the victim, returning stolen goods, or compensating with money or time through community service.
( Hendrix, G. M. (2004)). Similarly,the effects for impact panels and reparative boards were small, with no randomassignment studies contributing to the analysis.
Corsaro, N. A. (2003). Disorganized neighborhoods and restorative justice: an examination ofsocial characteristics and the indianapolis juvenile justice experiment(Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN).
Hendrix, G. M. (2004). A test of reintegrative shaming theory’s concepts of interdependence andexpressed shame in restorative justice conferencing (Master’s thesis, Michigan StateUniversity). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No.1422579).
Jeong, S. (2010). Long-term effects of restorative justice conferencing on future criminality: TheIndianapolis experiment (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Availablefrom ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3440032).
McGarrell, E. F. & Hipple, N. K. (2007). Family group conferencing and re-offendingamong first-time juvenile offenders: The Indianapolis experiment. Justice Quarterly,24(2), 221–246.
McGarrell, E. F., Olivares, K., Crawford, K., & Kroovand, N. (2000). Returning justice to thecommunity: The Indianapolis Juvenile Restorative Justice experiment