Content uploaded by Kerry Clamp
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kerry Clamp on May 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
1
Chapter 12
Restorative policing for the 21st century: Historical lessons for future practice
Dr Kerry Clamp*
Restorative policing has experienced somewhat of a tumultuous journey within the
international criminal justice landscape. The practice first emerged in Wagga Wagga,
Australia in the early 1990s where its architects drew inspiration from both the New
Zealand conferencing system and John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.
This chapter argues that the inspiring results of that pilot project have not been
replicated elsewhere and proceeds to interrogate the reasons for this. The chapter
contributes to the Handbook’s objectives by making two key arguments. The first is
that the operationalisation of restorative justice within contemporary policing
environments, with the pressures of austerity and public accountability, naturally
lends itself to quantity over quality resolutions. The second is that both the
champions and evaluators of contemporary restorative policing schemes have
prioritised learning from failure over success. If we return to the origins of the
restorative policing model, we learn that good practice takes time, investment and
community-police partnerships. Only once these internal resources are secured can
true restorative policing that benefits the community take place. Limits to that
realisation come from surprising quarters and raise some uncomfortable questions
about the state of the field, if restorative policing was ‘allowed’ to work.
Introduction
At the end of the 1980s, the introduction of family group conferencing in New Zealand and
the publication of the seminal text ‘Crime, Shame and Reintegration’ (Braithwaite 1989)
dramatically altered the global restorative justice landscape in two principal ways (Umbreit
and Zehr 1996). First, those who were involved in delivering restorative processes were no
longer exclusively trained volunteers, but increasingly became trained practitioners. Second,
the number of participants in the process expanded beyond the victim, offender and
facilitator to include friends, family members and other interested parties. As scholarship on
restorative justice became increasingly popular, it also became possible to distinguish
restorative scholars based on their intellectual and philosophical orientations (Dignan 2005).
First, abolitionists, campaigned for the replacement of the criminal justice system with an
alternative restorative system of justice (e.g. Zehr 1990). Second, separatists, believed that
criminal justice and restorative justice were incompatible and that any interaction between
the two would result in the usurpation of restorative justice for criminal justice aims. Thus,
they campaigned for restorative justice to exist as a completely distinct twin-track system
(e.g. Wright 1991). Third, reformists, believed that restorative justice principles, values and
* Assistant Professor of Criminology, University of Nottingham: kerry.clamp@nottingham.ac.uk.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
2
processes had the potential to transform criminal justice from the ‘inside-out’ and thus
campaigned for its integration within the criminal justice process (Dignan and Lowey 2000).
Of course, the criminal justice system has remained robust and there is widespread
agreement that it will remain the dominant formal response to crime and deviance for the
foreseeable future. While the ambitions of reformists have had a number of promising
starts,
1
the fears of separatists have also been apparent as Umbreit explains:
As any reform moves from its early stage of development and attempts to become
accepted and institutionalized, the probability of ‘losing its soul’ is increased. As the
primary focus of the process shifts from offering an experience of healing and closure
for those most affected by crime to serving justice system goals, the initial passion
and creativity of the movement can be quickly lost. (1999: 214)
The insemination of restorative justice into the criminal justice system in neoliberal states
has reflected this pattern. In particular, the obsession with legislating behaviour criminal,
holding offenders to account and managing the performance of criminal justice agencies
through targets and audits has resulted in a rather limited presence of qualitatively
‘restorative’ solutions to the crime problem. Instead, these initiatives have often been
characterised by low victim participation rates and a neo-correctionalist
2
agenda whereby
the ‘“don’t make matters worse” philosophy of the minimum intervention approach’ has been
rejected ‘in favour of a policy of zero tolerance’ (Cavadino and Dignan 2007: 320, emphasis
original). Thus, managerialist concerns over ‘effectiveness’ have constrained the expansion
of restorative justice within the criminal justice system (Miers 2004).
The outcome of this for restorative policing in its contemporary guise, particularly within
England and Wales, is that it is primarily used as an early interventionist response to minor
offending committed by juveniles (Shewan 2011). This is in stark contrast to the aims and
practice of the original restorative policing model which sought to find a way of effectively
dealing with crime outside of the criminal justice process and in partnership
i
with the
community. This paper interrogates the reasons for this and makes two key arguments. The
first is that the operationalisation of restorative justice within contemporary policing
environments, with the pressures of austerity and public accountability, naturally lends itself
1
This has included the integration of restorative outcomes (such as reparation, compensation and
community service) into sentencing. ‘Mainstreaming’ has also been evident whereby restorative
principles and processes have shaped new policy and legislation (i.e. in diversion programmes or within
the reform of the system itself in relation to young offenders as in New Zealand, Northern Ireland and
South Africa. See further Clamp 2008).
2
See Cavadino and Dignan (2007) for a full discussion of the characteristics of this.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
3
to quantity over quality resolutions that can be interrogated and repackaged in the form of
statistics.
The second is that both the champions and evaluators of contemporary restorative policing
schemes have prioritised learning from perceived risks rather than the key successes
secured during pilots. If we return to the origins of the restorative policing model, we learn
that good practice takes time, investment and community-police partnerships. Only once
these resources are secured, can a form of restorative policing take place that benefits all
stakeholders. Limits to that realisation come from surprising quarters and raise some
uncomfortable questions about the state of the field if restorative policing was ‘allowed’ to
work.
This chapter thus forms an important part of a collection that focuses on contentious
applications of restorative justice framed by a forward-looking orientation. Restorative
policing [only matched by the application of restorative justice to domestic and sexual
violence] has received significant resistance from commentators who believe that the risks
involved in allowing such practice far outweigh the benefits (see Clamp and Paterson 2017
for a broad overview of this debate). In seeking to meet the volumes aims, this chapter
begins by explaining what restorative policing is for those who are unfamiliar with this area of
practice by looking at its emergence in Australia at the beginning of the 1990s. Next, a
potted history of the international experimentation of restorative policing is presented before
drilling down into why the Wagga Model worked and why this has not been replicated
elsewhere. The paper ends by arguing that a strategy of ‘learning fast’ and ‘doing fast’ can
only end in ‘fast failure’ (Braithwaite 2016).
The ‘Wagga Model’ of Restorative Policing: A Brief Overview
It should be noted that all police work in common law countries takes place prior to the
prosecution of offences and therefore the use of restorative justice processes within this
context takes place as a diversionary option, or in other words, an informal resolution of the
case without prosecution. Given the range of due process concerns that arise from such
interaction, most restorative justice schemes used within these settings first require the
offender to admit responsibility for the offence and then for both the victim and the offender
to consent to their participation in the process. Reportedly, such an inclusionary approach
results in (more often than not) participants experiencing a sense of ‘procedural justice’ –
that they are satisfied that they have been dealt with in a fair and equitable manner (see
Tyler 2006).
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
4
In contrast, in civil law jurisdictions, such as Europe, police officers do not hold the same
level of discretion as their neoliberal counterparts (Daly 2001). Decision-making about the
offences that are channelled into and away from the criminal justice process is often
determined by prosecutors rather than police officers (Clairmont and Kim 2013). As such,
the opportunity for restorative practice to be used by police officers is restricted because
they are unable to decide on how a case should be dealt with on their own or in consultation
with the affected parties (Vynckier 2009). For this reason, this paper deals exclusively with
common law jurisdictions given the focus is on the Wagga Model.
Restorative policing in common law jurisdictions, in particular, has been underpinned by
three innovative developments in criminal justice (McCold and Wachtel 1998). The first was
the emergence of community and problem-oriented policing which sought to alter the
dominant and ineffective reactive policing style by increasing partnerships between the
police and the community they served. The second was the emergence of the theory of
reintegrative shaming (Braithwaite 1989) that argued informal social networks were more
effective in bringing about remorse and actions to repair harm caused than remote legal
authorities (see further Moore et al. 1995). Finally, the restorative justice movement offered a
process through which the objectives of community/problem-oriented policing and
reintegrative shaming could be realized. Thus, the emergence of the restorative policing
model has offered the police a framework through which to engage victims, offenders and
communities in dealing with crime, an aspect that has largely been missing from community-
oriented and problem-oriented policing (Clamp and Paterson 2017).
Restorative policing practice
3
emerged during the early 1990s in New South Wales, Australia.
Terry O’Connell (a Senior Sergeant with NSW Police) and John McDonald (Advisor to the
Police Commissioner on Youth and Juvenile Justice), played an instrumental role in the
development of what became known as the ‘Wagga Model’ of police cautioning (see Moore
and O’Connell 1994). Traditional responses were seen to perpetuate a criminal cycle due to
the stigmatising and often humiliating nature of the process, and therefore alternative
approaches were explored to contest the ‘revolving door’ of youth crime that was blighting the
3
Restorative policing can be discussed in one of two ways. First, as the ‘Wagga Model’, which refers
to the practice of police officers facilitating conferences between victims, offenders and their
supporters i.e. the processes themselves are police-led. Second, as the ‘New Zealand Model’ which
not only rejects the active role of police officers as facilitators but also which expands the notion of
restorative policing beyond the conferencing process to include the integration of restorative principles
into routine policing practice and referrals to conferencing schemes that exist outside of the police
agency altogether. For the purposes of this chapter, only police-led schemes or the Wagga Model is
discussed.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
5
community (Moore 1995). The only offences that were automatically disqualified from the
conferencing scheme were serious indictable offences (i.e. those offences that were
punishable by imprisonment for a minimum term of 5 years or more). Instead, the amount of
individual and social harm caused (rather than the type of offence committed) was the primary
criterion used in selecting cases. For a detailed explanation of the history and practice of the
Model, please see Chapter 28, in this volume written by Terry O’Connell.
Moore and Forsythe (1995) evaluated the scheme by analysing the Model, gathering the
views of conference participants (including police officers and other government officials)
and grounding their findings within a theoretical model. The research revealed a number of
extraordinary findings. First, the numbers of cases being processed by the courts reduced by
50 per cent without any net-widening (i.e. the amount of cases reported to the police began
to decrease – they were not dragging less serious offences into the conferencing process).
Second, this occurred without increasing the recidivism rate (in fact, there was a 40 percent
reduction in repeat offending overall). In addition, 93 percent of offenders fulfilled the
agreements that they had participated in creating during the conference and high levels of
satisfaction amongst all participants [i.e. the police, victims and offenders] was reported (see
Moore 1994).
The restorative policing ‘movement’
4
: Trials and tribulations
Unsurprisingly these results soon garnered the attention of practitioners further afield and
other states across Australia adopted the Wagga Model including: the Australian Capital
Territory (see Sherman et al. 1997); the Northern Territory (see Fry 1997), Queensland and
Tasmania (see O’Connell 1998). However, towards the middle of the 1990s, intense
academic debate
5
and political distaste arose about the legitimacy of police-led conferencing
(see Moore and Forsythe 1995; Daly 2001). This has resulted in the visible absence of
police-led conferencing in Australia. Ultimately, in 1998, the running of conferences fell
under the jurisdiction of juvenile justice agencies with police officers referring suitable cases
on to restorative justice schemes run outside of police forces (Richards 2010). However,
around the same time as the demise of restorative policing in Australia, it began to gain
ground internationally.
4
It is important to note that while only two examples of the Wagga Model has been presented here, it
was implemented in a range of different forces within the US, in Canada and a number of counties
within the UK. This representation has been necessarily selective due to space constraints. For a more
more detailed overview, please see Clamp and Paterson (2017).
5
There is a wide body of literature that is critical of an increase in restorative practice within the criminal
justice sector generally and, more specifically, police facilitated restorative processes (see, for example,
Ashworth 2001; McCold 1998; Umbreit and Zehr 1996a, 1996b; Young 2001).
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
6
The first country outside of Australia to experiment with the Wagga Model was the United
States (O’Connell 1998). The most well-known scheme is the ‘Bethlehem Family Group
Conferencing Project’ in Pennsylvania because of its experimental evaluation (McCold and
Wachtel 1998). The primary purpose of the experiment was to assess the model by
randomly diverting suitable cases to conferencing or through the normal adversarial [i.e.
court] process (Hines and Bazemore 2003). Eligible cases included a high percentage of
first-time felony cases and repeat offenders charged with misdemeanor violations in which
the offender was willing to admit responsibility and the victim and family agreed to
participate.
Early findings indicated that some of the 18 police officers who had received training to
facilitate conferences did not carry them out according to the benchmarks of the Wagga
Model and further training and support had to be delivered. McCold and Wachtel (1998)
report that officers were able to facilitate conferences in a manner consistent with due
process and restorative justice principles (most of the time) where further ongoing support
and training was offered. All outcomes were agreed to by the victim and were perceived to
be reasonable in relation to the nature of the offence committed. This research showed that
victims (96 percent) and offenders (97 percent) were satisfied with the process, just as much
as other victim-offender mediation programmes facilitated by non-police officers and nearly
all respondents confirmed that they would opt to participate in a similar process again and
recommend it to others (McCold 2003). Much like in Wagga Wagga, the vast majority of
offenders (94 percent) fulfilled the contents of the agreements reached during the
conference (McCold and Stahr 1996).
However, unlike in Wagga Wagga, McCold and Wachtel (1998) reported that they did not
perceive a cultural shift across the force, only a moderate change amongst those actually
delivering conferencing towards a more community-oriented problem-solving approach
(McCold 2003). This lack of cultural transformation was thought to be a result of the
marginalisation of the pilot, which was kept separate from the broader policing activities
taking place on a day-to-day level. Both officers and supervisors saw conferencing as an
additional task to be undertaken which interfered with patrol and responding to calls for
service, thus attracting limited organisational and managerial support (McCold 2003). As a
result, despite the positive findings that the evaluation yielded, practice was soon
marginalised in favour of referring cases out to community-based restorative justice
organisations.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
7
A few years later, another notable case study emerged in England and Wales. Sir Charles
Pollard, who was the Assistant Chief Constable at Thames Valley Police at the time, sought
to reduce crime through a force-wide rollout of the Wagga Model (1998-2001). His approach
departed from previous restorative policing experiments in that a headquarters-based
‘Restorative Justice Consultancy’ was established to oversee the training of police officers
across the force to ensure consistent practice by police officers in a more transparent and
accountable manner against specific aims and standards. This acknowledged some of the
objections raised by critics of police officer involvement in facilitating restorative processes
(see further Clamp and Paterson 2017). Furthermore, two distinct practices emerged –
restorative cautions (which only involved the offender and his/her supporters) and restorative
conferences (which also involved the victim and his/her supporters).
6
The scheme was evaluated using an action research methodology whereby the police could
benefit from interim findings and alter their practice as the evaluation went on (Young and
Hoyle 2003). This proved to be useful given that evaluators found a number of
implementation issues that included officers dominating discussions; prioritising their own
agendas rather than those of the participants; reinvestigating the offence; engaging in
intelligence gathering, and behaving as if the offender had to account to them personally,
with the other participants reduced to little more than passive observers (Hoyle et al. 2002).
Furthermore, a significant procedural problem was identified in that over a third of
participants received no pre-conference preparation.
7
In response to this, researchers were
able to arrange top-up training for officers and the introduction of a revised script insisted
officers not pursue a policing agenda during the conferencing process which resulted in a
dramatic reduction of the issues outlined (Hoyle et al. 2002).
Nevertheless, in 2001 Charles Pollard left the force and shortly after the government began
putting significant pressure on Thames Valley to improve their performance figures for
detections (whereby an offender is prosecuted for an offence). Without strong leadership
and support for restorative justice from within, restorative cautioning and conferencing began
to decline and soon traditional cautions were once again being utilised (Hoyle 2007). The
legacy of restorative policing in England and Wales is that conferencing has been mainly
6
Pollard’s tenacity in lobbying for a more pronounced role of restorative justice in response to crime
committed by youths received backing by the government through the eventual introduction of the Crime
and Disorder Act 1998 and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Hoyle 2007, 2009).
7
These findings are not unusual for English restorative justice schemes (see, for example, Crawford
and Newburn 2003 in relation to juvenile referral orders or Meadows et al. 2010 on community justice
panels).
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
8
used for cases that would not have been prosecuted (Hoyle 2002) thus resulting in net-
widening – a feature that had been absent in most of the case studies up until this point.
These two key examples of international experimentation (US and UK) with the Wagga
Model demonstrate both stark and complementary findings in comparison to the original
pilot. While police leaders [post Wagga Wagga] were keen to associate their forces with the
restorative policing experiment and drive forward some changes in restorative practice at the
frontline, ultimately their legacy withered and normal policing resumed. In many respects,
this is unsurprising. The role of senior police officers is to provide vision and a sense of
mission for the force and these individuals were certainly successful in introducing
restorative concepts and setting force priorities in favour of a restorative, as opposed to a
crime control, response. However, ‘vision among the lower ranks is more operationally
focused’ with officers reluctant to change their approach and practices unless such change
also suits their perceived purpose and functions (Pearson-Goff and Herrington 2013: 19). In
many respects then, the initial ‘boom’ of restorative practice within these forces can be
attributed to subordinate officers following orders, while the subsequent collapse provides
evidence of a veneer of change rather than any meaningful change within the cultural
meaning of police work at the local level.
Some have suggested that the key to longer-term change lies in a move from a transactional
leadership style to a transformational leadership approach. The former, said to be a
traditional or conventional approach to managing forces, involves the leader specifying not
only the expectations of subordinates but also the conditions under which such expectations
should be met and the rewards and penalties on offer (Engel and Worden 2003). In recent
years, this approach has fallen into disrepute and transformational leadership styles have
become increasingly popular which emphasise ‘participation, consultation and inclusion’ in a
bid to get subordinates to buy into the ‘vision’ that is being proposed (Silvestri 2007: 39),
much like that witnessed in Wagga Wagga.
While approaches to motivate cultural change within police forces are clearly important, it is
questionable whether this would result in sustainable change in the long term. Rather,
Clamp and Paterson (2013) suggest that in order for meaningful and sustainable change to
take place a twin-track approach is needed whereby leadership from above is informed by
restorative principles that not only allows, but also actively encourages transformational
leadership by frontline officers. Contemporary attempts to drive this change occur within a
top-down approach that unfortunately has not resulted in a significant transformation of
policing itself or police relations with the communities that they serve more generally. So
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
9
while restorative policing presents a radical shift in the expectations of how police officers
should approach their job, and indeed the resistance felt in response to restorative policing
confirms how radical a shift it is, it has not been implemented through a larger process of
reform.
Instead, a short-term view of restorative justice has been adopted – one that offers a cost
and time effective response to low-level offending – which has doomed it to the margins of
police business. In addition, the resistance to viewing restorative policing as an important
transformative shift has hampered the potential of restorative approaches not only for
policing, but for offending behaviour as well. This has been reinforced by the perception that
restorative justice is a ‘soft option’ and one that should be viewed by offenders as a last
chance (as outlined by the welfare approach) before punitive action is taken (as outline by
the zero tolerance approach). This repackaging of restorative justice has enabled neoliberal
governments to ‘sell’ a perceived ‘soft option’ for dealing with offending behaviour in a
manner that more comfortably sits with the punitive attitudes of the public.
The ‘politicization’ of crime and a ‘bifurcated’ approach (see Cavadino and Dignan 2007) to
dealing with offending reflects the growing intolerance and fear of crime among the public,
sensationalist media reporting, and the exploitation of the subject by politicians (Garland
2001). In both the United States and the United Kingdom, there is a much greater demand
for accurate crime data to demonstrate that something is ‘being done’ and a greater
emphasis placed on accountability. As such, statistics have become an important part of
public policy to highlight and describe the nature of social problems and also to monitor and
inform the policies and practices designed to remedy them (Simmons et al. 2003). The
significant challenge with this reality is a need to transcend both the cultural and political
belief that punishment is necessary. The Wagga Model, to a large degree, provided the
evidence-base to show that there are effective alternatives to the status quo. What is needed
is a long-term view of crime reduction and an overhaul of the relationship between the police
and the public as the following section will now demonstrate.
Learning from the past: The Wagga Model
The problem with subsequent iterations of restorative policing is threefold. First, previous
and contemporary programmes continued to operate without altering the role of policing in
reducing crime. Offending behaviour or ‘crime’ is viewed as an offence against the state that
needs to be punished in line with both reductivist and retributive principles. This has led to a
number of critics to question the utility of current justifications for punishment, particularly in
light of evidence that challenges the main rationales that underpin contemporary criminal
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
10
justice approaches (see further Braithwaite 1997; Cavadino and Dignan 2007; Lacy 2003).
Cavadino and Dignan (2007: 61) in particular suggest that there is ‘No morally legitimate aim
of punishment that cannot be achieved just as well and more humanely by the use of non-
custodial punishment’. This leads them to ask: ‘Why – unless we are all closet reductivists or
retributivists should not offenders be formally denounced with words and ceremony and then
set free?’ (2007: 48)
In Wagga Wagga, police officers were convinced that the criminal justice process was the
problem and that they needed to alter their approach in order to disrupt offending behaviour
that was blighting the community. They did this not only by creating an alternative approach
for cautioning, but also (and perhaps most importantly) by forging a strong partnership with
local community members.
8
This has been missing from subsequent iterations of the Model,
which have largely been implemented through a ‘top-down’, rather than a ‘bottom-up’
approach. The distinction between the two approaches is that the former is superimposed
onto the community whereas the latter is conducted in conjunction with the community.
More often than not, community-based schemes are devised as a means to further engage
the public in the administration of criminal justice in an attempt to increase confidence in the
criminal justice system (see Clamp and Paterson 2017), rather than to reduce reliance on it
as in Wagga Wagga. Moore (1993a) regards this is a mistake. For him consultation with the
geographic community is essential and only once full consent and cooperation is achieved
should any scheme be established. Indeed, subsequent schemes have located ultimate
failure as the result of a lack of community ownership (see, for example, Hines and
Bazemore 2003; Roberts and Masters 1999). As Johnstone (2002) warns, 'restorative'
schemes are inherently more difficult to implement because there is a lack of consensus
about the roles (both traditional and those newly created) of individuals within the process.
Second, crime in Wagga Wagga was redefined as a breakdown of relationships [rather than
an offence against the state] and conferencing or restorative dialogue, with its focus on harm
and relationships, became an opportunity for changing the experiences and lives of all
stakeholders. As such, the principle of ‘parsimony’ guided policing in Wagga Wagga along
with a shift in practice whereby breaches of obligation to the law were ‘addressed as if they
were breaches of obligation to the family and community’ (Grimshaw 2004: 7). However, this
shift has not been achieved in later cases. In fact, the imposition of restorative policing on
8
It is important to note that this Model, unlike others, was not informed by local ‘indigneous’ justice
practices, nor were local indigenous communities involved in its development. The community referred
to here refers to a geographic one.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
11
police officers has created important unintended consequences, as Braithwaite predicted
many years ago when he said:
If the police do not support conferencing and are not involved, and listened to in the
development of conferencing policies, then conferencing is not a good idea. This is
not just because police resistance will effectively kill the reform. If police do not
believe in conferencing and are required to refer young people to someone else to
run a conference, they will not refer many cases. Worse, the cases they do refer will
be cases they do not regard as serious enough to justify laying a charge themselves.
(1994: 208)
A wide range of empirical studies investigating police decision-making in referrals to
independent restorative justice schemes have demonstrated that they have widened the net
rather than reducing it as in Wagga Wagga. The most common factors cited that influence
whether or not police divert cases has included the seriousness of the offence, offending
history and attitude – particularly evidence of remorse and responsibility (see Carrington
1998; Crocker 2013; Doob and Cesaroni 2004; Doob and Chan 1982; Marinos and
Innocente 2008; Meadows et al. 2012). This ultimately results in bias given that oppressed
minorities often benefit less because of cultural differences in interaction (police not being
able to interpret remorse) and over-policing (and thus having prior criminal records). This
approach further reinforces that restorative justice schemes are perceived as yet another fad
in police reform by officers rather than a completely new way of perceiving and reacting to
crime.
Third, restorative policing was not perceived to be a programme or a scheme, but rather a
new way of being. Not unlike other forces who experimented with restorative justice, a
canvass of local officers prior to the implementation of conferencing revealed that the
approach was perceived as a ‘soft option’. In an attempt to get sceptics to support a trial of
the proposed scheme, a sergeant’s review committee met once a week to review all juvenile
matters, to decide which cases would be eligible for caution and to invite officers to observe
the process (Moore and Forsythe 1995; O’Connell 1998). This slow and considered
approach to developing the new cautioning process is acknowledged for helping the police
to accept the merits of the Model and subsequently actively support its implementation (see
O’Connell 1998). The review committee had a further unintended consequence in that it
challenged bias in case selection, as O’Connell explains:
Previously young people were too often inappropriately arrested for an offense,
which might be called ‘contempt of cop’. Quality control was being exercised for the
first time, with supervisors reviewing all juvenile arrests in a collegial way,
establishing ‘benchmarks’ for the seriousness of offences. This, and not necessarily
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
12
the conferencing process itself, accounted for much of the considerable reduction in
the number of cases placed before the court between 1991 and 1993. (1998: n.p.)
Review committee meetings were also transparent in that they were open to interested
parties (police and community) who wanted to attend. Developing oversight mechanisms
and encouraging external community participation served to provide an additional set of
checks and balances that were not always available in later iterations of the Model. The
current ‘on the spot/street RJ’ that takes place by police officers in England and Wales and
Northern Ireland does not serve to drive down the amount of cases dealt with by the criminal
justice process, but often further increases the net of cases. As demonstrated by O’Mahony
and Doak:
[…] some 80% of cases…examined were for offences concerning property of less
than £15. It was not uncommon to come across cases where a considerable amount
of police time had been invested in arranging for a full conference for the theft of
chocolate bar or a can of soft drink. (2004: 495)
So what can we take from the Wagga Model to inform current practice? I have grouped
these under three headings, namely: time, investment and community-police partnerships:
Time
As research has shown (see, for example, Hoyle et al. 2002; McCold and Wachtel 1998),
some officers find the transition to restorative policing a relatively easy one, whereas others
are unable to easily grasp the implications of restorative practice for their roles. When
O’Connell first developed the Wagga Model, this took time to learn what worked and what
did not. While this groundwork has been laid, there is still a need for this learning to take
place in each implementation site. A common theme running across all US and UK
restorative policing pilot sites is that training has been done either ‘intensively’ through a
three-day course or through a one-day session (also see Justice Committee 2016). This
does not work. In the words of John Braithwaite (2016): learning fast and doing fast can only
lead to fast failure.
As such, success in this area requires constant reinforcement through training, monitoring
and mentoring. Getting police officers to embrace this role and to understand it presents the
biggest obstacle. The Wagga Model has demonstrated that by involving officers in case
selection and/or observing conferences facilitated by their colleagues appeared to have a
significant impact on attitudes towards the Model subsequently (see Clamp and Paterson
2017). As highlighted by developmental theorists, notably William James, John Dewey,
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
13
Lewin and Piaget, people learn best through ‘doing’, which can be fostered by having a
supportive structure in place to facilitate understanding (see Landry 2011 for an overview of
police officer learning styles). As such, in many respects, it is inevitable that mistakes will be
made and that ‘old habits will die hard’ until officers gain insight into what is required during
the process and hold an appreciation of what it means to act in a restorative way – a radical
shift from traditional institutional practice.
Shapland (2009) speculates that the manner in which practice is implemented can have a
significant impact on whether police-led schemes are successes or failures. Drawing on her
own experience, she suggests that the best models are characterised by specialised units
undertaking restorative justice facilitation on a full-time basis. The importance of this
approach is that officers are able to ‘up skill’ on a continuous basis; they are relatively
autonomous (and therefore somewhat shielded from the operational pressures experienced
throughout the force more widely); they can ‘develop and maintain a proper restorative
culture’; they have sufficient time for follow-up; and no conflicts arise in terms of the
facilitating officer also being the arresting officer (2009: 128). These assumptions appear to
be consistent with the experience of schemes in both Australia and the United States and
explain the varied experience in the United Kingdom.
However, this also has the unfortunate consequence of marginalising restorative practice,
which then has no impact on the wider organisation. Furthermore, as other initiatives have
shown, these small units are subject to the changing whims of force priorities. Real
sustainable restorative policing needs to be a force-wide initiative that starts with a few and
slowly expands outwards, integrating other force members through a ripple effect. The key to
the success of the short-lived Wagga Wagga pilot, was that both the community and police
officers were exposed to restorative justice through a slow and considered approach and a
safety net was implemented through the review committee who were committed to
community policing (Moore and Forsythe 1995; O’Connell 1998). Once this had been done
and a conference arranged, officers were offered the opportunity to observe the process.
This has been a key feature of convincing sceptical officers (not only in Australia but
worldwide) that restorative justice is not a soft option and that there is high value in dealing
with offences in a restorative manner.
Investment
Many of the studies on the Wagga Model have identified officers as being committed to
restorative justice values, demonstrating genuine concern for the future welfare of offenders,
treating participants with respect and encouraging active participation (see, for example,
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
14
Sherman and Strang 1997; Young and Gould 2003). Criticism of police involvement in
restorative practice that use police culture as the frame of analysis struggle to pick up the
nuances that emerge from the mixed economy of policing (Crawford 2005). Contemporary
policing is resourced via a mixture of traditional reactive police officers who work alongside
more community-oriented officers who may be funded by local authorities, private agencies,
or even acting as volunteers. Each organisation will have its own distinct working culture and
close collaborative working has the potential to produce new hybrid cultures.
As such, Young (2003) argues that traditional police culture can certainly pose a challenge
to the implementation of restorative policing, but that the evidence suggests that the threat
that police will act as ‘judge and jury’ when facilitating cases might be overstated. A more
pressing issue is that senior officers become complacent when implementing restorative
practices within their forces, believing that police facilitation poses no problems and can be
carried out without the investment of resources. As Sherman and Strang note:
When RJ (or any programme) is rolled out quickly on a wide scale, there is a risk that
many conferences will just ‘go through the motions’ to ‘tick off a box’, rather than
treating each case as a kind of surgical procedure requiring careful advance
planning, preparation and follow-up. (2007: 21)
As such, in a climate of austerity it is harmful to promote restorative justice on the basis of its
cost savings. It is not an easy solution to a crime problem. If done properly, it is actually very
resource intensive. The cost savings come after the conference in the form of a reduction in
recidivism. There appears to have been a misinterpretation of how savings were made in
Wagga Wagga. Ultimately, it was police oversight and management of cases that were
being brought into the system as many of them, as outlined previously, were for ‘offences’
that should not have been considered ‘offences’ at all.
Community-Police Partnerships
Kathy Daly (2016) has argued that we should perceive restorative justice as a mechanism
because if we think of it as anything beyond this, it is doomed to failure. The problem with
this assessment is that restorative policing/conferencing becomes yet another tool in the
police officer’s toolbox. The outcome is that restorative processes are subject to
operationalisation in a way that fits with overriding norms and values of the system.
Restorative justice is not about responsibilising offenders, reducing recidivism or a quick fix.
Only once officers understand that it is not a tool and rather a completely new way of viewing
the crime problem, engaging with people that they come into contact with (both inside and
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
15
outside of the police organisation) and viewing success will long-lasting change come about.
Change, as the Wagga Model has shown, could be revolutionary not only for the criminal
justice system but for communities as a whole.
Restorative policing offers a completely different way to responding to crime. Not only are
individuals and groups within communities important stakeholders, they are also essential in
determining what behaviour falls outside of tolerable limits. This creates a dramatic shift in
the status quo. In order for policing priorities to be set, the community has to be engaged in
a conversation about what the priorities should be. Furthermore, the community has to be
actively engaged so that they play a key role in responding to behaviours that are
unacceptable. Policing thus becomes a community-police issue that requires strong
partnerships to be forged.
Conclusion
This chapter has argued that we have learnt little from previous iterations of restorative
policing. It does seem strange that we appear to have been successful in creating a
revolutionary policing model but that despite the reported successes, it has failed to be taken
seriously by senior criminal justice practitioners. The Wagga Model was so successful
because it viewed ‘success’ in a different light. Many years ago, Peel (1829, emphasis
original) argued that: ‘The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not
the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it’. Many of the key restorative policing
proponents have understood this and made a case for the reform of the way in which
policing is viewed and how that shift would alter police-community responsibilities.
Unfortunately, in practice, the visible evidence of police action has usurped restorative
processes whereby cases are brought into contact with the criminal justice process that
ultimately should not be there. Some six years ago, Bazemore and McLoed (2011) provided
an alternative framework through which restorative processes could, and should, be
evaluated. They suggested that we should ask:
[…] whether the intervention process, and subsequent follow-up steps, created or
strengthened relationships; increased participants’ sense of capacity and efficacy in
community skills in problem-solving and constructive resolution; promoted individual
awareness of and commitment to the common good; and expanded informal support
systems or ‘safety nets’ for victims and offenders. (2011: 162)
The Social Discipline Window (Wachtel 1997, 2000; Wachtel and McCold 2000) provides a
visual to demonstrate how restorative justice is distinct from other approaches. If any
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
16
initiative or programme is going to be successful, we have to involve all stakeholders in the
process so that we do things with them rather than to or for them. Perhaps stated more
explicitly, the police should involve all stakeholders (in our case community members,
victims and offenders as well as their supporters) through a process of co-construction of
practice in the negotiated space of justice realisation that seeks to confront and reduce
power imbalances.
9
Through empowerment, knowledge co-construction and the validation of
‘lived experiences’ all involved would be able to propose new crime responses, rather than
applying standardised solutions to injustices by outside ‘experts’ (i.e. the government or
policing hierarchies).
As such, restorative policing should become an iterative process (as demonstrated by the
Wagga Model) whereby it is used as a reflective process of progressive problem solving to
improve the way the police and community address issues and solve problems collectively.
Instead of viewing restorative justice as a tool for achieving the functions of policing (i.e.
upholding and enforcing the law, promoting and preserving public order, protecting the public
and preventing crimes), restorative policing should be perceived as an entirely different
framework through which officers can develop an effective partnership with the community.
Through such an approach, restorative policing can ultimately result in a way to transform
the way we view crime, our responses to it and to reduce social distance (Braithwaite 2003;
Christie 2004; Johnstone and Van Ness 2007).
Ultimately where officers are trained fast and do fast, they can only fail fast too. Restorative
policing is so much more than a mechanism that should be evaluated according to the
criminal justice systems key performance indicators (such as reducing recidivism,
satisfaction and cost-benefit analyses). Ultimately the Model has demonstrated strong
outcomes in this regard, but that did not frame why O’Connell and his colleagues designed
and implemented it. They knew that the current approach to dealing with offending was
faulty and that change had to be initiated within the force along with their community’ help
first. Imagine, for a moment, what society would be like if restorative policing was allowed to
work as intended.
References
Ashworth, A. (2001) ‘Is Restorative Justice the Way Forward for Criminal Justice?’, Current
Legal Problems, 54, 347–376.
Bazemore and McLoed (2011) xxx
9
Often used in public health, see for example, Shannon et al. (2008).
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
17
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1994) ‘Thinking harder about democratising social control’, in C. Alder and J.
Wundersitz (eds) Family Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or
Misplaced Optimism? Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Braithwaite, J. (1997) Restorative justice: Assessing an immodest theory and a pessimistic
theory. [Online]. Available from: www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/braithwaite.html
Braithwaite, J. (2000) ‘Republican Theory and Crime Control’, in S. Karstedt and K.
Bussmann (eds) Social Dynamics of Crime and Control. New Theories for a World in
Transition. Oxford: Hart.
Braithwaite, J. (2003) ‘Principles of restorative justice’, in A. von Hirsch, J. Roberts, A.
Bottoms, K. Roach and M. Schiff (eds) Restorative Justice and Criminal Justice:
Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms? Oxford: Hart. Braithwaite 2016
Braithwaite, J. (2016) ‘Learning to Scale Up Restorative Justice’, in K. Clamp (Ed.)
Restorative Justice in Transitional Settings. London: Routledge.
Carrington, P. (1998) Factors Affecting Police Diversion of Young Offenders: A Statistical
Analysis. Ottawa: Solicitor General of Canada
Cavadino, M. and Dignan, J. (2007) The Penal System: An Introduction, London: Sage
Publications.
Christie, N. (2004) A Suitable Amount of Crime. London: Routledge.
Clairmont, D. and Kim, E. (2013) ‘Getting past gatekeepers: The reception of restorative
justice in the Nova Scotia criminal justice system’, The Dalhousie Law Journal, 36(2):
359–391.
Clamp, K. (2008) ‘Assessing Alternative Forms of Localised Justice in Post-Conflict
Societies – Youth Justice in Northern Ireland and South Africa’, in D. Frenkel, and C.
Gerner-Beuerle (Ed.) Selected Essays on Current Legal Issues, Athens: ATINER.
Clamp, K. and Paterson, C. (2013) ‘An Exploration of the Role of Leadership in Restorative
Policing in England and Wales’, in A. Normore and N. Erbe (Ed.) Collective Efficacy:
Interdisciplinary Perspectives on International Leadership. Bingley: Emerald.
Clamp, K., and Paterson, C. (2017) Restorative Policing: Concepts, Theory and Practice.
London: Routledge.
Crawford, A. (2005) Plural Policing: The Mixed Economy of Visible Patrols in England and
Wales. Bristol: Policy Press.
Crawford, A. and Newburn, T. (2003) Youth Offending and Restorative Justice: Implementing
Reform in Youth Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Crocker, D. (2013) ‘The effects of regulated discretion on police referrals to restorative
justice’, The Dalhousie Law Journal, 36(2): 393–418.
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
18
Daly (2001) ‘Conferencing in Australia and New Zealand: Variations, Research Findings and
Prospects’, in A. Morris and G. Maxwell (eds) Restoring Justice for Juveniles:
Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Daly (2016) ‘What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question’, Victims &
Offenders, 11:1, 9-29.
Dignan, J. (2005) Understanding Victim and Restorative Justice, Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Dignan, J., and Lowey, K. (2000) Restorative Justice Options for Northern Ireland: A
Comparative Review. Research Report 10. March. Belfast, Northern Ireland: Criminal
Justice Review Group.
Doob, A. and Cesaroni, C. (2004) Responding to Youth Crime in Canada. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Doob, A. and Chan, J. (1982) ‘Factors affecting police decisions to take juveniles to court’,
Canadian Journal of Criminology, 24(1): 25–37.
Engel, R.S. and Worden, R. E. (2003) Police officer attitudes, behaviour and supervisory
influences: an analysis of problem-solving. Criminology. 41(1): 131-166.
Fry, D. (1997) A Report on Community Justice Program: ‘Diversionary Conferencing’.
Northern Territory Police: Alice Springs.
Garland, D. (2001) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grimshaw, R. (2004) ‘Whose Justice? Principal drivers of criminal justice policy, their
implications for stakeholders, and some foundations for critical policy departures’, vol
7 (British Society of Criminology conference, London, July 2004)
Hines, G. and Bazemore, D. (2003) ‘Restorative Policing, Conferencing and
Community’, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 4(4): 411-427.
Hoyle, C. (2002) ‘Securing restorative justice for the “non-participating” victim’, in C. Hoyle
and R. Young (eds) New Visions of Crime Victims. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
Hoyle, C. (2007) ‘Policing and restorative justice’, in G. Johnstone and D. Van Ness (eds)
Handbook of Restorative Justice. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Hoyle, C. (2009) ‘Restorative Justice Policing in Thames Valley’, in T. Peters, P.
Ponsaers, J. Shapland and B. Van Stokkom, (eds) Restorative Policing. Netherlands:
Maklu-Publishers.
Hoyle, C., Young, R., and Hill, R. (2002) Proceed with caution: An evaluation of the Thames
Valley Police initiative in restorative cautioning, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Johnstone, G. (2002) Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. Collumpton: Willan
Publishing.
Johnstone, G. and Van Ness, D. (2007) ‘The meaning of restorative justice’, in G. Johnstone
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
19
and D. Van Ness (eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice. Collumpton, UK: Willan
Publishing.
Justice Committee. (2016) Restorative Justice Inquiry: Report. House of Commons: UK
Parliament.
Lacey, N. (2003) ‘Penal Theory and Penal Practice: A Communitarian Approach’, in S.
McConville (eds) The Use of Punishment. Cullompton: Willan Publishing.
Landry, J. (2011) Learning Styles of Law Enforcement Officers: Does Police Work Affect
how Officers Learn? Unpublished PhD thesis, Capella University, Minneapolis.
McCold, P. (1996) ‘Restorative Justice and the Role of Community’, in B. Galaway and J.
Hudson (eds) Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.
McCold, P. (1998) Police-facilitated restorative conferencing: What the data show. Paper
presented to the Second Annual International Conference on Restorative Justice for
Juveniles, Florida Atlantic University, and the International Network for Research on
Restorative Justice for Juveniles, Fort Lauderdale, FL, 7–9 November. Available at:
fp.enter.net/restorativepractices/policeconferencing.pdf.
McCold, P. (2003) ‘An experiment in police-based restorative justice: The Bethlehem (PA)
Project’, Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 4(4): 379–390.
McCold, P., and Stahr, J. (1996) Bethlehem Police Family Group Conferencing Project,
Paper presented to the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago,
November 20-23.
McCold, P. and Wachtel, B. (1998) Restorative Policing Experiment: The Bethlehem
Pennsylvania Police Family Group Conferencing Project, Pipersville, PA: Community
Service Foundation.
Marinos, V. and Innocente, N. (2008) ‘Factors influencing police attitudes towards
extrajudicial measures under the youth criminal justice act’, The Canadian Journal of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, 50(4): 469–489.
Meadows, L., Albertson, K. Ellingworth, D. and Senior, P. (2012) Evaluation of the South
Yorkshire Restorative Justice Programme. Sheffield: Hallam Centre for Community
Justice.
Meadows, L., Clamp, K., Culshaw, A., Cadet, N., Wilkinson, K. and Davidson, J. (2010)
Evaluation of Sheffield City Council’s Community Justice Panels Project. Hallam
Centre for Community Justice. Sheffield: Hallam Centre for Community Justice.
Miers, D. (2004) ‘Situating and researching restorative justice in Great Britain’, Punishment
and Society, 6(1): 23-46.
Moore, D. (1993) ‘Facing the Consequences’, in L. Atkinson and S. Gerull (eds) National
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
20
Conference on Juvenile Justice Conference Proceedings, Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Moore, D. (1994) ‘Evaluating Family Group Conferences’, in in D. Biles and S. McKillop (Ed.)
Criminal Justice Planning and Coordination, Canberra: Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Moore, D. (1995) A new approach to juvenile justice: An evaluation of family conferencing in
Wagga Wagga, A Report to the Criminology Research Council, Wagga Wagga,
Australia: Center for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University–Riverina.
Moore, D. and Forsythe, L. (1995) A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An Evaluation of
Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A Report to the Criminology Research
Council. Wagga Wagga, AUS: Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Stuart
University-Riverina.
Moore, D. and O’Connell, T. (1994) ‘Family conferencing in Wagga Wagga: A
communitarian model of justice’, in C. Alder and J. Wundersitz (eds) Family
Conferencing and Juvenile Justice: The Way Forward or Misplaced Optimism?,
Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology.
Moore, d., Forsythe, L., and O’Connell, T. (1995) A New Approach to Juvenile Justice: An
Evaluation of Family Conferencing in Wagga Wagga. Wagga Wagga, Australia:
Charles Strut University.
O’Connell, T. (1998) ‘From Wagga Wagga to Minnesota’. Paper presented at the First
International Conference on Conferencing, Minneapolis, MN, USA. Available from:
http://www.iirp.edu/article_detail.php?article_id=NDg5
O’Mahony, D. and Doak, J. (2004) ‘Restorative justice – is more better? The experience of
police-led restorative cautioning pilots in Northern Ireland’, Howard Journal of
Criminal Justice, 43(3): 484–505.
Pearson-Goff, M., and Herrington, V. (2013) ‘Police Leadership: A Systematic Review of the
Literature’, Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 8(1): 14–26.
Peel, R. (1829) Sir Robert Peel’s Principals of Law Enforcement. Online. Available from:
https://www.durham.police.uk/About-
Us/Documents/Peels_Principles_Of_Law_Enforcement.pdf
Richards, K. (2010) Police-referred restorative justice for juveniles in Australia. Trends &
issues in crime and criminal justice no. 398, Canberra: Australian Institute of
Criminology.
Roberts, A. and Masters, G. (1999) Group Conferencing: Restorative Justice in Practice,
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Centre for RJ and Mediation, School of
Social Work.
Shapland, J. (2009) Restorative justice conferencing in the context of community policing’, in
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
21
L. Moor, T. Peters, P. Ponsaers, J. Shapland and B. van Stokkom (Ed.) Restorative
Policing, Netherlands: Maklu-Publishers.
Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (1997) The Right Kind of Shame for Crime Prevention, RISE
Working Paper No. 1. Canberra: Australian National University, Research School of
Social Sciences. Online. Available from:
www.aic.gov.au/rjustice/rise/index.html
Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007) Restorative Justice: The Evidence, London: The Smith
Institute.
Sherman, L. and Strang, H. (2007) Restorative Justice: The Evidence. London: The Smith
Institute.
Sherman, L., Strang, H., and Barnes, G. (1997) Reintegrative shaming experiment for
restorative community policing. Canberra: Australia National University.
Shewan, G. (2010) A Business Case for Restorative Justice, Available from:
www.restorativejustice.org.uk/resource/the_business_case_for_restorative_justice_a
nd_policing/.
Silvestri, M. (2007) 'Doing police leadership: Enter the new smart macho', Policing and
Society, 17(1): 38-58.
Simmons, J., Legg, C. and Hosking, R. (2003) National Crime Recording Standard
(NCRS): An Analysis of the Impact on Recorded Crime. Companion Volume to Crime
in England and Wales 2002/2003. Home Office Occasional Paper 31/03. London:
Home Office.
Tyler, T. (2006) ‘Restorative justice and procedural justice: Dealing with rule-breaking’,
Journal of Social Issues, 62(2): 307-326.
Umbreit, M. (1999) ‘Avoiding the marginalization and “McDonaldization” of victim– offender
mediation’, in G. Bazemore and L. Walgrave (eds) Restorative Juvenile Justice:
Repairing the Harm of Youth Crime. New York: Criminal Justice Press.
Umbreit, M. and Zehr, H. (1996a) ‘Family group conferences: A challenge to victim-offender
mediation?, VOMA Quarterly, 7(1): 4-8.
Umbreit, M. and Zehr, H. (1996b) ‘Restorative family group conferences: Differing models
and guidelines for practice’, Federal Probation, 60(3):24-29.
Vynckier (2009) ‘A comparative view on the role of police in different restorative practices in
Flanders’, in L. Moor, T. Peters, P. Ponsaers, J. Shapland and B. van Stokkom (Ed.)
Restorative Policing, Netherlands: Maklu-Publishers.
Wachtel, T. (1997) Real Justice: How to Revolutionize our Response to Wrongdoing.
Pipersville, PA: Piper’s Press.
Wachtel, T. (2000) ‘Restorative practices with high-risk youth’, in G. Burford and J. Hudson
Routledge International Handbook of Restorative Justice (2018)
22
(eds) Family Group Conferencing: New Directions in Community Centered Child &
Family Practice. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Wachtel, T., and McCold, P. (2000) ‘Restorative justice in everyday life’, in J. Braithwaite and
H. Strang (eds) Restorative Justice in Civil Society. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Wright, M. (1991) Justice for Victims and Offenders: A Restorative Response to Crime,
Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Young, R. (2001) ‘Just Cops Doing “Shameful” Business? Police-led Restorative Justice and
the Lessons of Research’, in A. Morris and G. Maxwell (eds) Restorative Justice for
Juveniles Conferencing, Mediation and Circles, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Young, R. (2003) ‘Just cops doing “shameful” business? Police-led restorative justice and
the lessons of research’, in A. Morris and G. Maxwell (eds) Restorative Justice for
Juveniles Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Young, R. and Gould, B. (2003) Restorative police cautioning in Aylesbury – from degrading
to reintegrative shaming ceremonies’, in E. McLaughlin, R. Fergusson, G. Hughes
and L. Westmarland (eds) Restorative Justice: Critical Issues, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Young, R. and Hoyle, C. (2003) ‘New Improved Police-Led Restorative Justice?’, in A.
von Hirsch, J. Roberts, A. Bottoms, and M. Schiff (Ed) Restorative Justice and
Criminal Justice Competing or Reconcilable Paradigms, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Zehr, H. (1990) Changing Lenses, Scottsdale, PA: Herald Press.
i
The author would like to thank Professor David O’Mahony for his helpful comments on an earlier draft
of this chapter.