Report
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
The article aims to provide an empirical synthesis of various existing literature which delve into the question of how effective restorative justice practices are. The article utilizes meta-analytic techniques in the analysis of data retrieved from various studies that compare traditional approaches to criminal justice that are nonrestorative in nature, to restorative justice programs. In particular, the article attempts to highlight the differences in the efficacy levels of the two approaches based on rates of recidivism, restitution compliance, offender as well as victim satisfaction. The researchers essentially attempt through their hypotheses, to argue that restorative justice programs are significantly more effective than traditional non restorative approaches.
Methods
The researchers carry out a literature review of materials on the subject of restorative justice and analyze the data collected from these studies through meta-analysis. The researchers therefore utilized meta-analysis, which entails three basic steps:
Literature review: The authors started by identifying as well as gathering research studies that were relevant. The studies selected for evaluation had to meet a certain set of criteria.
Data Collection: The researchers established a specific approach to collecting data, which entailed the use of a specific predetermined coding procedure.
Data Analysis: The authors then proceed to analyze data aggregated from the selected studies using various statistical techniques; key amongst them being sample t- tests, estimation of the phi coefficients as well as other statistical procedures.
Findings
The findings displayed a significant difference in the levels of effectiveness of restorative programs compared to non restorative programs, with restorative programs coming across as more effective. Restorative justice was found to achieve greater success in all four areas: recidivism, restitution compliance, victim and offender satisfaction.
Compared to 13 other programs, with the exception of one, restorative justice programs resulted in the highest impact on victim satisfaction at +.19. When it came to offender satisfaction, the effectiveness of restorative justice programs is less clear. The researchers found that while the impact of such programs was at +.10, most offenders could not really distinguish between the process itself and the need to compare it to the other programs. In terms of restitution compliance, the effect was found to be quite high at +.33, while for recidivism, the effect recorded was at +.07.
Overall, restorative justice programs were found to have a greater effect on the four areas explored, more so when it came to restitution compliance, an effect that could be attributed to the fact that such approaches to criminal justice usually give the offender the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions, while the victims are also accorded the opportunity to receive compensation for any harm caused to them.
Limitations
The researchers found that in almost all studies regarding restorative justice programs, there was an inherent self-selection bias that tempered most of the positive findings that accompanied most studies. Further, the researchers also found that due to a lack of sufficient data, the study was unable to answer several questions regarding a number of moderating variables.
Another limitation mentioned by the researchers, was the restrictive nature of meta-analytic procedures, which limited the study’s ability to adequately and completely explore aspects such as the effect of offender compliance to restitution agreements on victim satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Relationship to Theories Studied
The fact that restorative justice programs had a significant impact on the levels of recidivism is testament to the accuracy of the labeling theory to a large extent. Not only does it strongly highlight the fact that at times restitution works, but also that removal of criminal labels may actually go quite a long way towards reducing the chances of individuals engaging in criminal activities, more so if given the opportunity to atone for their wrong doing. This approach to criminal justice actually eliminates the need for an individual to conform with the predetermined labels, as it essentially replaces moral indignation with tolerance and therefore, allows for the active reintegration of offenders back into society, thereby shaming any potential labelers (Sumner, 1994).
The article can also be related to the social conflict theory in a way. Restorative justice can be taken to signify the manner through which the oppressed group restores social order, by acknowledging their place within society, and taking responsibility for their wrong doing. As such, it is, if looked at from such a perspective the perfect way to deal with the social conflict, which results in crime. Restorative justice essentially, therefore, amounts to an admission to violating the interests and norms of the group in power.
The findings of this study therefore conform to theory. More so if looked at from the perspective of the labeling theory. Not only do the findings indeed affirm the belief that restorative programs lead to a greater sense of satisfaction amongst offenders and victims, but they also lead to lower recidivism rates compared to other non restorative programs, perhaps direct proof of the effect that labeling may have on the reoccurrence of criminal behavior.
In addition to conforming to theory, the article also mentions a number of variables that can be linked to the conflict and labeling theories. At the fore is perhaps restitution compliance as well as recidivism. In attempting to deal with recidivism, the labeling theory actually advocates for a gains based recovery (restitution), suggesting a close association between the theory and the findings of the article.
In their conclusion, however, the researchers actually admit that the most significant limitation to studies on restorative justice programs is that of self-selection bias. In fact, this is even suggested as a potentially significant area for further research, more so if findings from studies on restorative justice are to be accepted as valid and credible. In particular, the researchers highlight the need to establish an understanding of the extent to which the self selection bias is significant, key to confidence in findings. These findings are however in contrast to those of Bazemore, Gilbert and Choi (2012), more so on the aspect of victim satisfaction. Bazemore et al (2012) posit that the positive effect restorative justice programs have on victim satisfaction are actually exaggerated and perhaps paint the wrong picture, especially when it comes to how to best approach the question of restorative justice.
Despite this disparity, the article by Latimer, Dowden and Muise (2005) offers an in depth understanding of the theory of restorative justice, more so on its positive impacts when it comes to the criminal justice system. It not only highlights the fact that restorative justice is one of the most important approaches to dealing with recidivism, but also provides an essential theoretical and practical corroboration to various criminological theories, especially the conflict theory.
References
Bazemore, G., Gilbert, M., & Choi, J. (2012). Review of research on victims' experiences in restorative justice: Implications for youth justice. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 35.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The Effectiveness of Restorative Justice Practices: A Meta-Analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Sumner, C. 1994. The Sociology of Deviance: An Obituary. New York: Continuum Publishing.
