The readiness of various communities for the implementation of restorative justice in the community setting: A perspective of community organization

Abstract

The method of community organization can be used to implement restorative justice within the community. This study aimed at understanding whether members from seven communities in Malaysia would assume responsibility for restorative justice initiatives, accept various elements of restorative justice, and welcome offenders back into the community. The findings are mixed. Some community members believed that the community setting may offer resources for offender rehabilitation that the criminal justice system does not have; others raised concerns over various limitations such that communities may not be equipped to deal with criminal cases.

Keywords

Community community organization Malaysia readiness restorative justice

Introduction

There is a need to acknowledge the role of communities in criminal processes (Clear and Karp, 2000; Karp and Clear, 2000; Menez-Zafra, 2001). This trend stems from the recognition that what the authorities do is linked very closely with various aspects of the concerned communities. Very rarely do authorities operate without involving the communities – whether intentionally or otherwise. One of the ways this link can be observed is through the justice system–community relation, which can be either harmonious or discontented depending on the degree to which the justice system (e.g. police) is in sync with the community members (Ross, 2011).

However, involvement with the community has to start with trust, which often comes from the perceived legitimacy of the justice system, and this may shape the community’s cooperation with the justice system (Tyler and Fagan, 2008; Tyler et al., 2015). One example of measures that have been taken to increase perceived legitimacy and trust is the establishment of community policing (Miller et al., 2013). To build trust, community policing requires the police to collaborate with the community to assess what the community truly needs, which may enhance conformity and cooperation (Ferreira, 1996).

In contrast with the conventional military-style system (mainly coercive) of policing, community policing requires the consent of the community for any measures taken by the police (Brogden and Nijhar, 2013). Although this article does not seek to critically analyse the effectiveness of community policing (for such information, refer to Ferreira, 1996; Laru-an and Beup, 2015), some research claims that community policing has been regarded as the most effective tool in improving police–community relations and building communities that are resistant to crime (Wasserman, 2010).

Another measure undertaken to increase the community’s trust in criminal processes is the recognition and enhancement of procedural justice (De Mesmaecker, 2014; Hough et al., 2013; United States Department of Justice, n.d.) and restorative justice (Fulford, 2011). Both procedural justice and restorative justice, although different, share a similar value of responsibility (Tyler, 2006). This promotes the recognition of the community as an important part of the criminal justice system. Both forms of justice have been argued to be far superior to retributive justice, with procedural justice enhancing the perceived legitimacy of the criminal justice system (Tyler, 2009: 307–359) and restorative justice directly benefitting both the victims and the offenders (Bradshaw and Roseborough, 2005; Umbreit et al., 2000).

Restorative justice and community organization

The idea of restorative justice is to address the needs of those directly affected by the crime, namely, the victims and the offenders (McCold, 1996). McCold has succinctly explained why communities are relevant to the practice of restorative justice. According to him, when considered from a broader perspective, crimes produce fear in communities, directly affecting the lives of members of the community. His argument is that this feeling of fear among community members has an impact beyond their personal boundaries – it may translate into a sense of hopelessness that further affects various aspects of the quality of life of communities, such as their socio-economic status. This leads to his statement that this need for safety and security can be addressed not only through an effective justice system that responds efficiently to the threat against the safety of the community, but also through the roles and responsibilities of community members to provide safety and security among themselves.

McCold’s (1996) argument is echoed by others scholars. Rosenblatt (2015) likewise acknowledged the importance of communities in the practice of restorative justice, which prompted him to argue that the question is no longer whether the community members should be involved, but rather why and how they should be involved. However, currently, the more common practice is that the citizens pay taxes that can turn into resources by which public services – such as the provision of security and safety – may be provided by the state (Wright and Foucault, 2005). This leads to a crime-control model of the justice system, making the communities along with other stakeholders, such as the victims and the offenders, passive participants in the system.

However, Rosenblatt (2015) noted that communities have the resources to establish security through various means, including restorative justice. Beck (2012) highlighted that the community, as one of the valuable stakeholders of the criminal process, may become a part of various restorative processes resulting from their community spirit in achieving security, which produces engagement – a process that is highly valued in restorative justice. Restorative boards, for example, require the community members to play important roles in dealing with crime in conjunction with other professionals.

Thus, community organization is a very important early step in empowering community members to embark on these roles and responsibilities. Hesitance among community members is a real issue (Myhill, 2012). However, whether this hesitance is due to distrust in the justice system or apathy remains unclear. The point highlighted by Wright and Foucault (2005) about citizens and taxes may also be a plausible explanation, given that paying their taxes would reasonably lead the community members as citizens to expect that some services are provided by public agencies and that they should be passive recipients of such services.

This is contrary to the concept of empowerment – a pivotal element if a social worker seeks changes in a community from their own proactive actions. This is because empowerment is the opposite of the state of powerlessness, by which community members are driven to take action to change their circumstances (Sadan, 1997). This implies that the sense of security and safety within a community is achieved when the community members realize that they have to be more active in materializing that objective.

To reiterate the challenges that exist in organizing communities, Ross (1967) noted several barriers that may exist:

the effect of technology on relations within a neighbourhood;

the effect of urbanization on the ‘sense of belongingness’;

the difficulty in maintaining shared values;

the tendency for the existence of subgroups that may create tension;

the powerlessness of new institutions;

a lack of active participation that inhibits personal development.

Ross (1967) highlighted these barriers in discussing the possible deterioration of ‘essential human dignity’ that may be answered with a social work practice by which the values are helpful in addressing these barriers. Therefore, in relation to the current study, in order to organize and facilitate communities it is helpful to understand how these barriers may influence the operation of implementation of restorative justice.

Aim of the study

Based on the discussion so far, community organization may be a necessary method for the efficient implementation of restorative justice among Malaysian communities. Furthermore, the importance of community involvement is established, warranting the need for community organization. However, Petersilia (2000) argued that the effectiveness of community involvement may also depend on the degree of social cohesion that exists within a community. In addition, there is an argument stating that most efforts for improving the relation of the justice system with the community are one-way – from the justice system to the community (Ross, 2011).

For these reasons, communities become a pivotal point in many discussions of criminal processes because all communities share two things (Worrall, 2014): (1) homogeneity in social characteristics, and (2) related to this homogeneity, the assumption that the community members share certain responsibilities. Through these arguments, this study aims at understanding the views of community members on the implementation of restorative justice. This aim is based on the argument that community members’ involvement would require policymakers to understand and hear the voice of these people in the implementation process (Frimpong, 2011; Roberts and Hough, 2005).

Methods

Sample

To achieve the aim of this study, which was to assess the readiness of community members for the implementation of restorative justice, communities whose members had different backgrounds were selected. The study recruited 41 community members from seven communities in Malaysia. The communities chosen varied in their demographic backgrounds (which are summarized in Table 1 above), such as socio-economic status (three low-income and four middle-income communities), age groups (ranging from young adults to elderly), and types of areas (two communities in rural areas and five communities in urban areas). The recruitment of respondents from various backgrounds ensured that the effort to understand the issue was as comprehensive as possible. All respondents gave their consent to participate in the study at their own convenient time and place.

Table 1.

Summary of the demographics of the respondents.

Community demography		n
Socio-economic status	Low income	3
Socio-economic status	Middle income	4
Area	Rural	2
Area	Urban	5
Range of age	Young adults to elderly

Design and material

The material for this qualitative study was a set of questionnaires designed to understand the respondents’ perceptions of implementing restorative justice in their own community. The in-depth interviews assessed (1) the respondents’ understanding of their roles and responsibilities, as opposed to those of the traditional authorities, (2) their acceptance of various elements of restorative justice, such as dialogues between victims and offenders and apology/forgiveness, and (3) the importance of the community setting for offender rehabilitation (Zehr, 2015).

Data analysis

A thematic analysis procedure suggested by Braun and Clarke (2006) was employed, and it comprised the following steps: (1) familiarization with the data, (2) generation of codes, (3) identification of themes from the codes, (4) revision of themes, (5) naming of themes, and (6) publication of reports. To achieve these steps, the researchers transcribed the recorded responses. However, given that researchers can be biased in their data analysis, the method of investigator triangulation was used to reduce bias as much as possible (Denzin, 2006). To this end, the researchers appointed several scholars and practitioners to check and form a consensus on the interpretation and themes identified from the responses.

Results

The instrument of the in-depth interview comprised the following three parts: (1) assumption of responsibilities, (2) acceptance of certain elements of restorative justice, and (3) the view of the community as a setting for offender reintegration. This section will highlight the most salient themes emerging from the responses.

Assumption of responsibilities

Quite a large number of community members agreed that they should assume the responsibility to address crimes along with traditional authorities. Their justification was on the basis of the offenders’ interest – that the offenders had a higher chance of improving if the communities also took part in the process. The higher likelihood of improvement comes from the direct interaction offenders had with community members, which could foster the feeling of shame among offenders and the feeling of acceptance among community members towards the offenders:

I agreed because I really sympathized with them [the offenders] and I do not want to drag the issue further. (Respondent 10)

Because it [crimes] has happened many times, like when a burglar broke into my home the other day. The burglar was released because when we made a police report, the police arrested him, and released the burglar back here. And then the burglar would do it again. So, if we bring the burglar to us [the community members], perhaps he’d feel ashamed. (Respondent 23)

They also noted that the community setting provided advantages that the traditional authorities otherwise could not. One such advantage was that there was a high likelihood that the community members would know who the offender was, making the assistance process more intimate. This intimacy also implied that the community members had more accurate knowledge about offenders and their offending history. Therefore, the element of relationship was strongly emphasized by the respondents:

… because it’d make it easy as we [the community members] would know the environment of where we stay, so we would also know who is wrong. I mean, of course because it is our community. We also would know if the crime was committed by a member of our community or an outsider. So, we would be able to monitor better. (Respondent 15)

Yes we should … It is because the people of this village should know one another. (Respondent 31)

However, a larger number of respondents did not agree that community members should be involved in criminal processes, for several reasons. One of the most reported reasons was that the community members were not trained to handle criminal cases. According to these respondents, this lack of training would make the community members more likely to act unprofessionally and emotionally, which would threaten the efficacy of the community involvement. Many respondents cited the example of one’s ‘own children’, suggesting that they would surely act emotionally and become violent if their own children had been the victims of the offender’s crime. Another reason popularly reported by the respondents was that the community members did not possess the same training and knowledge as the traditional authorities. Some respondents said that the legal knowledge possessed by traditional authorities such as the police is important and that community members are not equipped with such knowledge. Many expressed the concern that community members might not know the appropriate punishment that should be invoked or whether their actions were aligned with legal procedures:

I do not agree with it because, this kind of responsibility, we should give it up to the police. The police is more trained then the community members. (Respondent 12)

We have children … We catch the offender and send him to the police. (Respondent 19)

… because if we depend on the villagers, I am afraid that it might get out of control and things like assault might happen. Maybe the offender would be in critical condition. Because when people are angry we never know what would happen. (Respondent 28)

Another reason cited by the respondents implied a passive attitude towards their roles and responsibilities in the criminal process. Many of the responses related to this theme simply acknowledged that there was already an existing agency that addresses crimes. This leads to the argument that redundant roles played by the community members would only lead to problems in the criminal process:

We already have the related agencies (to handle this). So, we just give the power over to the security agencies that our country has already established. (Respondent 2)

Another reason cited was the lack of physical capacity to handle the criminal cases. Most of these responses came from members of communities with a larger older population – reporting that they were afraid of the consequences if they were involved in criminal cases. Furthermore, many respondents were concerned about the possibility that the offender might retaliate against the community members’ attempted involvement in the criminal process:

We are old. We are afraid of the offenders. We do not have any other solutions for this … (Respondent 8)

Acceptance of restorative justice elements

Many of the respondents seemed to have an open mind towards various elements of restorative justice, namely dialogues, apology/forgiveness and reparation of harm. From their responses, this acceptance was due to several reasons. First, many exhibited the ability to empathize with the experience of offenders. This empathy is reflected through the understanding that offenders should be given a second chance and an opportunity for rehabilitation and improvement. However, this empathy may also be conditional. Some respondents asserted that second chances should be given if the offenders seemed deserving – such as if they had committed first and/or petty crimes. Some respondents also exhibited profound understanding of the impact of the criminal justice system on the offenders. These respondents claimed that the justice system would have minimal positive impact on the offenders, thus requiring the involvement of the communities:

With the involvement by the community members, then we’d know the full story from all sides. We cannot make our own assumptions. Furthermore, the society would not have negative perception towards the offenders because everyone in the community knows the full story. (Respondent 35)

… because then he [the offender] would not be stressed out when he is out of the justice system from the stigma and everything. (Respondent 40)

There were also responses that pointed to empathy for the victims of crime. A large number of respondents pointed to the possibility of restorative justice being beneficial for the victims in various ways. One of the most popular reasons given was that through elements of restorative justice such as dialogues, victims would gain the opportunity to determine why the crime had been committed against them, which the respondents claimed would be therapeutic for the victims. The respondents stated that the criminal process and decision should benefit both the offenders and the victims equally, and that such benefits may be achieved through restorative justice:

It depends on, like, if he [the offender] stole a phone, then he would need to replace the phone. He also has to apologize. (Respondent 11)

The victims will be satisfied because the offenders would get what they deserve based on the agreement by the victims and the offenders. (Respondent 33)

For those who did not agree with the implementation of restorative justice, the most reported reason was distrust towards the offenders. Many of the respondents believed that no intervention would change an offender for the better. This theme of responses was observed when respondents were asked about different elements of restorative justice, including dialogues and apology/forgiveness. Furthermore, related responses also expressed disagreement with this question because many respondents stated that crimes are too ‘heavy’ to allow the offenders to undergo an intervention as easy as having a dialogue, for example:

There are a lot of things we need to consider first. Like, why did the offender commit a crime in the first place. Some offenders commit crime out of habit. These kinds of offenders won’t change. (Respondent 1).

Offenders also have a lot of excuses … (Respondent 8)

No, the offender cannot be trusted. He has to go to the system. In my opinion, that is the only way for him to change. (Respondent 18)

Some of the respondents were also blunt and reported that they were too ‘lazy’ to take part in a criminal process that uses the ideology of restorative justice. Many of these respondents, in relation to the report of being lazy, said that there were already authorities that would handle criminal cases, rendering their involvement unnecessary. Justifying these reasons, the respondents stated that the crime was a past event, and according to them, it would be useless to dwell on it now:

It has happened, it is in the past and we just need to give it time. (Respondent 9)

Go straight to the police station. No need anything else. (Respondent 17)

I do not want. I am scared. And I do not know how to deal with this kind of situation. (Respondent 31)

Reintegration into the community

Regarding this matter, many respondents expressed that it would be more appropriate for the offenders to be situated in the system rather than in the community because of the already existing plans and programmes offered there. In addition, according to these respondents, the offenders would feel no remorse by being situated in a community setting and this would escalate the problems:

We [the community members] might do whatever we want. We might beat him [the offender] up, with a piece of wood, with a hot metal. So, it is better to send the offender to the system, there are programmes like counselling and guidance. (Respondent 29)

Interestingly, those who believed in the system were those who were more likely to doubt the offenders’ potential for improvement and to assume no responsibility in a restorative programme for offenders. According to these respondents, offenders should be excluded from society and organizing meet-ups between the offenders and other parties in the community might risk further harm. Therefore, according to these respondents, the traditional authorities are more equipped to play roles in the criminal process:

They [the offenders] must go to the prison. That is how they get better. (Respondent 8)

The offenders must go to the system. There are a lot of programmes. Being in the community is why they commit crimes in the first place. (Respondent 18)

However, those who agreed that the community was a good option as a rehabilitation setting for the offenders acknowledged that the communities had certain values that might not be available in the system. Community members could educate the offenders with the valuable tools available, such as the intimacy that already existed before the offenders were involved in crime. Therefore, through this education, the offenders would have a higher likelihood of changing and desisting from crime:

We [the communities] must accept the offenders. We cannot throw them out from the community. We can help. Some people can change. (Respondent 25)

I think the offenders need to see religious people. The religious people can help. (Respondent 26)

… because the community members can educate. We feel for the offenders’ parents. They must feel terrible because their children go to the system. (Respondent 32)

Discussion

The Malaysian government has voiced the need for restorative justice in Malaysia (The Star, 2011). Therefore, since the involvement of the community is pivotal to the implementation of restorative justice, this study sought to understand the readiness of the communities for this implementation, assessed through three aspects: (1) assumption of responsibilities, (2) acceptance of certain elements of restorative justice, and (3) the view of the community as a setting for offender reintegration. Furthermore, this study sought to apply the principles of community organization, one of the methods of community work in social work.

This study sheds light on the barriers that exist within the community setting, which may be in line with Ross’ (1967) discussion about the challenges that may necessitate the method of community organization for improving conditions in a community. The first notable observation from the responses was the respondents’ lack of active participation in the criminal process. Various respondents implied their backseat attitude by indicating that the existence of the authorities rendered their participation unnecessary.

To understand community participation, it is helpful to consider the types of participation, as suggested by Morgan (1993). According to the author, community participation can be ‘spontaneous’, ‘induced’ or ‘coerced’. These types of participation symbolize how power is defined according to the mind-set of different community members and that the type of participation can inform researchers and policymakers about the kind of relations that exist within a society – or who is more dominant and who is more submissive. Based on the findings that various community members expressed unwillingness for different reasons, this study would like to raise the following question: Does this indicate that Malaysian communities are more submissive towards the legal system?

Given that empowerment is an important element in restorative justice (Zehr, 2015) and that empowerment also means that the community has the ability to draw out the necessary resources for development (Sawin and Zehr, 2007), in the Malaysian context, perhaps the first challenge that needs to be addressed to implement restorative justice within the community is to empower the communities to actively participate despite their various concerns. This may be achieved through the advocacy of the community members involved in the decision-making process, the use of resources that exist within their setting, and other methods (Barton, 2003). However, this study echoes Barton’s call for further studies to be conducted on how empowerment can be effectively employed through various strategies.

Another important observation from the responses is the overwhelming number of responses that pointed to distrust of the offenders – and this translates into the community members’ hesitance in accepting the ideas of restorative justice. Ross (1967) raised the concern of the powerlessness of new institutions or the phenomenon where new groups of people who emerge within the society do not have similar levels of ability to express their views. Juvenile offenders are not ‘new institutions’ per se, but this study believes that given the hesitance shown towards giving juvenile offenders a chance at healing in the community setting, it can be argued that juvenile offenders as a subgroup that desperately need to share their voice may be powerless in the communities.

This article will not detail the consequences of perceived stigma for offenders returning to the communities, as various studies have demonstrated how stigma can affect an ex-offender’s development after release (e.g. Moore et al., 2014; Zachary, 2016). However, this striking finding of distrust towards the offenders concurs with the findings by Hirschfield and Piquero (2010), who observed that those who had less faith in the justice system may not stigmatize ex-offenders as much as those who believe in the effectiveness of the justice system. This is because those who expressed distrust towards the offenders, similar to some respondents in this study, are more likely to be of the opinion that the justice system was sufficient to address crime and to punish the offenders.

Therefore, in addition to the concern about the powerlessness of new institutions (i.e. the ex-offenders in this study), Ross (1967) also warned about the difficulties that may arise from the community members not having shared values. However, this concern is not shared by the findings demonstrated by Breidahl et al. (2018). For the purpose of this study, we tend to agree more with Ross’ concern given that Breidahl et al’.s study was conducted in Denmark, an individualistic country that prioritizes individual needs over societal needs (Hofstede Insights, 2018). Since Malaysia is a collectivistic society, we would argue that shared values may be necessary in creating the social cohesion needed for a successful implementation of restorative justice. However, since our study did not specifically find this, we invite future studies to investigate the role of individualism/collectivism in the management of shared values that may threaten or contribute to an efficient implementation of restorative justice in the community setting.

In relation to Ross’ (1967) concern about the powerlessness of new institutions, the existence of subgroups of people that may create tension should also be highlighted. Harmony between the community members and the returning ex-offenders needs to be maintained because the efficacy of re-entry depends on it. The social psychological literature has significantly contributed to the identification of strategies that may be employed to create harmony between groups within a society. Tajfel and Turner (2001), for example, proposed a social identity theory to explain how people categorize individuals within a society into in-groups or out-groups. This process of categorization comes along with stereotyping and discrimination that may cause certain subgroups to access fewer resources for development.

Another related theory is intergroup contact theory, which asserts that contact between two groups may reduce the tendency for prejudice (Pettigrew, 1998). According to this theory, mere contact between two groups could facilitate healthy bonds to replace hostile prejudice. In a setting similar to that of the current study, another study found that community members who have been in contact with ex-offenders reported feeling more positively towards the ex-offenders (Rade et al., 2016). Therefore, we argue that for communities to be open to the idea of implementing restorative justice in the community setting, initial contacts with ex-offenders may be necessary in the form of various positive activities. Community organizers may consider that community members and returning ex-offenders should be familiar with each other’s presence to potentially facilitate the implementation of restorative justice.

Limitations of study and conclusion

This study is not without its limitations. Due to the study design, the findings from this study cannot be generalized. However, the study attempted to widen the perspectives obtained through collecting data from various types of communities. Due to this decision, this study gained insight into different concerns that were expressed by communities of different backgrounds, such as the fear expressed by older community members, and the similarity between those who believed in the system and the belief that juvenile offenders might be irredeemable. A second limitation (or rather improvement) that may be addressed in future research is to complement the findings of the current study with a quantitative approach. Several elements involved in this study such as social cohesion, prejudice against juvenile offenders, and fear of crime can be observed quantitatively – promoting more objective data interpretation. A quantitative approach may allow policymakers to build models that predict the kind of preparedness and cooperation given by community members in implementing restorative justice in their context, which would complement the exploratory nature of this study.

The objective of the study was to highlight how community organization can be a useful social work method to facilitate communities’ implementation of restorative justice within the community setting. Various strategies have been offered by past studies to ensure the effectiveness of a community organization method conducted to implement a particular initiative within a community setting. Based on the findings, this study has two implications. The first is an academic implication. This study adds to the literature through the invitation to reflect further on how the method of community organization helps in implementing restorative justice as a community-based rehabilitation for the offender. This study explored community preparedness on the implementation of restorative justice in their context, but it did not satisfy the gap of the actual strategies of community organization that can be taken.

Furthermore, this study notes several gaps that may be explored in future research: (1) How can community organizers effectively empower communities to take on the responsibilities of implementing restorative justice within the community setting? As illustrated by this study, community members had various concerns regarding their capacity to become more proactive in improving the security of their context. Empowerment may be hindered by these concerns, which is why they should be addressed. (2) What shared activities based on intergroup contact theory may be implemented to reduce prejudice between groups and increase the readiness of the community to offer their setting for restorative justice programmes? This study argues that shared activities should be among the first steps taken to promote better implementation of restorative justice in the community setting – and hence should also be among the first to be investigated.

Second, this study has important practical implications, having highlighted the various requirements for increased readiness among community members to assume responsibilities. One such need is training provision to equip community members with the required skills and knowledge that may give them the confidence to assume new responsibilities. This training requires resources from various agencies, especially the justice system, given that restorative justice implemented in the community setting should benefit the justice system through the reduction of cost that would have been incurred by incarcerating offenders.

Another need is related to the perceptions of the community members on offenders, which may be tainted with stigma and prejudice. From this observation, this study suggests that education and awareness campaigns may create harmonious reintegration of ex-offenders back into the community setting. The gap that has been highlighted by this study concerns the effective strategies where this objective can be achieved. Therefore, as mentioned, this may require further understanding in the form of future research endeavours.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I am especially thankful to my students for their willingness to be a part of the enumerator team. In addition, I would like to thank the respondents in this study who were willing to spend time with the research team.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This study was funded by Universiti Sains Malaysia.

Author biography

Taufik Mohammad is a lecturer of social work in the School of Social Sciences at Universiti Sains Malaysia. His specializations are juvenile offenders and justice, victims of crime, and restorative justice.

References

Barton

C.K.

(2003) Restorative Justice: The Empowerment Model. Annandale: Hawkins Press.

Beck

(2012) ‘Transforming Communities: Restorative Justice as a Community Building Strategy’, Journal of Community Practice 20: 380–401.

Bradshaw

Roseborough

(2005) ‘Restorative Justice Dialogue: The Impact of Mediation and Conferencing on Juvenile Recidivism’, Federal Probation 69: 15–21.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3: 77–101.

Breidahl

K.N.

Holtug

Kongshøj

(2018) ‘Do Shared Values Promote Social Cohesion? If So, Which? Evidence from Denmark’, European Political Science Review 10: 97–118.

Brogden

Nijhar

(2013) Community Policing. London: Routledge.

Clear

T.R.

Karp

D.R.

(2000) ‘Toward the Ideal of Community Justice’, National Institute of Justice Journal 245: 21–7.

De Mesmaecker

. (2014) Perceptions of Criminal Justice. London: Routledge.

Denzin

(2006) Sociological Methods: A Sourcebook. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

10.

Ferreira

B.R.

(1996) ‘The Use and Effectiveness of Community Policing in a Democracy’, in Pagon

(ed.) Policing in Central and Eastern Europe: Comparing Firsthand Knowledge with Experience from the West. Ljubljana: College of Police and Security Studies, pp. 139–149.

11.

Frimpong

(2011) ‘Can Democratic Accountability Increase BAME Trust and Confidence in the Police?’, in Mahan

(ed.) Trust & Confidence in the Criminal Justice System, pp. 23–6. London: Race on the Agenda (ROTA).

12.

Fulford

(2011) ‘Trust and Confidence in the Criminal Justice System: Learning from South Africa’, in Mahan

(ed.) Trust & Confidence in the Criminal Justice System, pp. 19–22. London: Race on the Agenda (ROTA).

13.

Hirschfield

Piquero

A.R.

(2010) ‘Normalization and Legitimation: Modeling Stigmatizing Attitudes toward Ex-Offenders’, Criminology 48: 27–55.

14.

Hofstede Insights (2018) ‘Country Comparison’. Available online at: https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/denmark/

15.

Hough

Jackson

Bradford

(2013) ‘Legitimacy, Trust and Compliance: An Empirical Test of Procedural Justice Theory Using the European Social Survey’, in Tankebe

Liebling

(eds) Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: An International Exploration, pp. 326–52. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16.

Karp

D.R.

Clear

T.R.

(2000) ‘Community Justice: A Conceptual Framework’, Boundary Changes in Criminal Justice Organizations 2: 323–68.

17.

Laru-an

N.G.

Beup

H.T.

(2015) ‘Level of Effectiveness of Community Policing’, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 5: 1–5.

18.

McCold

(1996) ‘Restorative Justice and the Role of Community’, in Galaway

Hudson

(eds) Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, pp. 85–102. New York: Criminal Justice Press.

19.

Menez-Zafra

(2001) ‘Mobilizing the Community for Improved Criminal Justice Administration’.Available online at: https://www.unafei.or.jp/activities/pdf/joint_philippines/topic5.pdf

20.

Miller

L.S.

Hess

K.M.

Orthmann

C.H.

(2013) Community Policing: Partnerships for Problem Solving. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

21.

Moore

K.E.

Stuewig

J.B.

Tangney

J.P.

(2014) ‘The Effect of Stigma on Criminal Offenders’ Functioning: A Longitudinal Mediational Model’, Deviant Behavior 37: 196–218.

22.

Morgan

L.M.

(1993) Community Participation in Health: The Politics of Primary Care in Costa Rica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

23.

Myhill

(2012) ‘Community Engagement in Policing: Lessons from the Literature’. Available online at: http://whatworks.college.police.uk/Research/Documents/Community_engagement_lessons.pdf

24.

Petersilia

(2000) ‘When Prisoners Return to Communities: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences’, Federal Probation 65: 3–8.

25.

Pettigrew

T.F.

(1998) ‘Intergroup Contact Theory’, Annual Review of Psychology 49: 65–85.

26.

Rade

C.B.

Desmarais

S.L.

Mitchell

R.E.

(2016) ‘A Meta-Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Ex-Offenders’, Criminal Justice and Behavior 43: 1260–80.

27.

Roberts

J.V.

Hough

(2005) Understanding Public Attitudes to Criminal Justice. New York: McGraw Hill Education.

28.

Rosenblatt

F.F.

(2015) The Role of Community in Restorative Justice. Abingdon: Routledge.

29.

Ross

J.I.

(2011) Policing Issues: Challenges & Controversies. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Publishers.

30.

Ross

M.G.

(1967) Community Organization: Theory and Principles. New York: Harper & Row Publishers.

31.

Sadan

(1997) Empowerment and Community Planning. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad Publishers.

32.

Sawin

J.L.

Zehr

(2007) ‘The Ideas of Engagement and Empowerment’, in Johnstone

Van Ness

D.W.

(eds) Handbook of Restorative Justice, pp. 41–58. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis.

33.

Tajfel

Turner

(2001) ‘An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict’, in Hogg

M.A.

Abrams

(eds) Intergroup Relations: Essential Readings (Key Readings in Social Psychology), pp. 94–109. New York: Psychology Press.

34.

The Star (2011) Shahrizat Jalil: Taskforce to look into restorative justice system. [Online] Available at: http://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2011/10/22/shahrizat-jalil-taskforce-to-look-into-restorative-justice-system/

35.

Tyler

T.R.

(2006) ‘Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing with Rule Breaking’, Journal of Social Issues 62: 307–26.

36.

Tyler

T.R.

(2009) ‘Legitimacy and Criminal Justice: The Benefits of Self-Regulation’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 7: 307–59.

37.

Tyler

T.R.

Fagan

(2008) ‘Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?’, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 6: 231–75.

38.

Tyler

T.R.

Goff

P.A.

MacCoun

R.J.

(2015) ‘The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement’, Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16: 75–109.

39.

Umbreit

M.S.

Coates

R.B.

Roberts

(2000) ‘The Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation: A Cross-National Perspective’, Mediation Quarterly 17: 215–29.

40.

United States Department of Justice (n.d.) ‘Building Community Trust’. Available online at: https://www.justice.gov/jmd/file/820796/download

41.

Wasserman

(2010) Guidance for Building Communities of Trust. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice.

42.

Worrall

(2014) Punishment in the Community: The Future of Criminal Justice. London: Routledge.

43.

Wright

Foucault

(2005) ‘Community Involvement in Restorative Justice’. Available online at: http://www.voma.org/docs/connect19.pdf

44.

Zachary

(2016) ‘How Stigma Is a Barrier for People with Mental Illness Transitioning from Forensic or Correctional Institutions into the Community: A Systematic Review’. Available online at: http://www.springerlink.com.library2.smu.ca/bitstream/handle/01/26704/MacMillan_Zachary_Honours_2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

45.

Zehr

(2015) The Little Book of Restorative Justice: Revised and Updated. New York: Skyhorse Publishing.