The Effectiveness of Reintegrative Shaming and Restorative Justice Conferences

Abstract

This article examines the effectiveness of diversionary restorative justice (RJ) conferences through the eyes of juvenile offenders. In Australia, Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) are based on Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming. Previous studies, although showing that RISE reported high levels of victim satisfaction and positive changes in the attitudes of offenders, also demonstrated that it has different outcomes for juvenile offenders depending on the type of offense with which they were charged. However, the effectiveness of RISE in terms of the offenders’ perceptions has not been addressed, and the impact of the offenders’ perceptions about RISE still remains under investigation. Using Australian data from RISE between 1995 and 1999, this article examines juvenile offenders’ perceptions on preventing reoffending, repaying the victim and society, and the degree of repentance. The data were taken from interviews with juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or RISE processing. A comparison of standard court processing effects and RISE on juvenile offending, including property crime, shoplifting, and violent offenses, was undertaken. The results from this study were somewhat inconsistent with previous research. In this study, there was no significant relationship between RJ conference and the offenders’ own perceptions on the prevention of future offending. However, it was found that there were treatment effects on repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance, and that younger offenders wanted to repay the victim/society and feel repentance.

Keywords

Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming reintegrative shaming experiments (RISE)diversionary restorative justice conferences juvenile offenders’perceptions

Introduction

Sociological explanations of juvenile delinquency include control, subcultural, learning, and labeling theories, and these theories have successfully been explored by many scholars. For example, labeling theory has been developed by Lemert, who defined primary and secondary deviance, and Becker’s attempts to conceptualize three situations of delinquents: the pure deviant, the falsely accused deviant, and the secret deviant (Shoemaker, 2005). In his integrated form of these popular theories, Braithwaite found that societal labeling and shaming effectively deter delinquents, but the deterrent effect is influenced by several other factors, such as differences in culture. Attempting to integrate the insights of control, subcultural, learning, and labeling theories of crime, Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory suggested that reintegrative shaming can result in lower crime rates. This theory has received considerable attention in the context of common crimes, especially in juvenile crimes, such as predatory delinquency (Zhang & Zhang, 2004) and school bullying (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004); most of the studies found that reintegrative shaming can be an effective deterrent to juvenile crimes (Levi, 2002).

The developed and applied forms of Braithwaite’s theory are the focus in restorative justice (RJ) conferences and have received considerable attention from many scholars and public policy makers. The purpose of the conference is to confront offenders with the consequences of their actions and encourage them to take personal responsibility for complying with the law in the future. Some jurisdictions in the United States use RJ conferences for various kinds of offenses. Many studies found that RJ conferences were particularly appropriate for very young offenders (McGarrell, 2001).

The police-run conferences in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, the first formal conferences in the United States, showed a high level of victim satisfaction and reduced recidivism rates for offenses against the person but not for property offenses (McCold & Wachtel, 1998). Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) is the second implementation of such conferences and are celebrated as a major advance in the evaluation of the effectiveness of diversionary RJ conferences on repeat offending (Tyler, Sherman, Strang, Barnes, & Woods, 2007). RISE also reported high levels of victim satisfaction and showed positive changes in the attitudes of offenders (Strang, Barnes, Braithwaite, & Sherman, 1999) without mentioning the offenders’ own perceptions of the experiment. Moreover, a study that examined the effectiveness of RISE found that this program affected offenders charged with different kinds of offenses differently (Sherman, Strang, & Woods, 2000). According to their study, it was found that the dynamics of each type of offense may create a dissimilar emotional climate and basis for legitimacy of legal intervention using court or conference processes. Most previous studies defined the impact and effectiveness of RJ conferences very narrowly usually limiting only to perceptions of fairness and satisfaction, and have only focused on general effects of RJ conferences, such as victim satisfaction, recidivism rates, and changes in the attitudes of offenders. Studies exploring the impact of the offenders’ own perceptions have rarely been conducted. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Australian RISE using original data gathered from the experiment focusing on juvenile offenders’ perceptions.

Literature Review

Empirical evidence for Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory has been found in a variety of contexts. Mostly, it has been used in the study of blue-collar crimes, including street crimes, juvenile delinquency, and drug offenders. Moreover, this theory has been used in the study of white-collar crimes (Benson, 1990; Elis & Simpson, 1995; Levi & Suddle, 1989; Makkai & Braithwaite, 1994; Murphy & Harris, 2007).

Braithwaite’s Reintegrative Shaming Theory

Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming is different from other theories in the way in which it addresses crime control, and his theory has received considerable attention due to its focus on the effect of shaming. Unlike many other traditions of crime control policy, which focus on the offenders’ punishment or isolation from society, Braithwaite emphasized the importance of cultural integration and argued that the key factor to “crime control is cultural commitments” (Braithwaite, 1989, p.1) to shaming. To control crime, society has to provide appropriate reintegrative shaming to people, according to Braithwaite, who recommended that society has to create an environment in which accepting an individual accepted back into society should be the primary goal, rather than labeling offenders to isolate them from society. The rate of offending will be lower especially when society exercises reintegrative shaming with more serious offenses, and the moral educational function of punishment is more important than the deterrent function (Braithwaite, 1989).

Suggesting the reason why some societies have higher crime rates than others, Braithwaite presented two types of shaming: reintegrative and disintegrative. Although disintegrative shaming (stigmatization) creates a class of outcasts and thus prevents offenders from rejoining the society, societies with reintegrative shaming retain bonds of respect or love and sharply terminate disapproval with forgiveness, instead of amplifying deviance by stigmatizing (Braithwaite, 1989). Braithwaite focused on the shaming process, as an explanation for variations in crime rates and as a normative approach to crime control, which he argued should partly replace imprisonment and other severe formal sanctions (Levi, 2002). Furthermore, integrating with the currently popular criminological theories, there are two major concepts in Braithwaite’s theory: interdependency and communitarianism. Interdependency and communitarianism were represented as individual and social factors, respectively, to achieve crime control. At the individualistic (interdependency) level, he used individual factors which were taken from the traditional literature that predict increased likelihood to commit crimes, such as being young, male, unmarried, unemployed, and having little education. He used the variables urbanization and residential mobility at the social (communitarianism) level (Braithwaite, 1989). For individual factors that influenced the commission of crime, his theory is influenced by control theory, which emphasizes the importance of positive attachment to institution such as the family, school, and work. He pointed out that if a strong positive relationship exists, and there is support to help each other not to be involved in deviant behavior, crime intervention would be effective.

Braithwaite cited the culture of Japan as an example of the reintegrative shaming process and pointed out that the shaming process and the role of an apology have an important place in interdependency and communitarianism (Braithwaite, 1989). In Japan, when an individual commits a crime, it affects the offender’s social environment, such as family, school, and company (Braithwaite, 1989). Making the group to which an offender belongs take the responsibility for the member’s deviant behavior is the idea behind intense collectivism. To make reintegrative shaming work in society, Braithwaite insisted that members of the society should have the “repentant role” (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 162). In other instances of social conflict, such as an airplane crash or collapse of a bridge or public building, which produces many victims, as in criminal cases, the responsible person in organizations needs to apologize for the negative consequences to the people.

Unlike Japan, the United States has multiple ethnic groups with various cultural backgrounds. Thus, it can be argued that the shaming process would not work well if applied in the United States. However, there are a number of studies that have successfully supported the effect of reintegrative shaming in the context of many crimes not only in the United States but also in many other countries (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Ferdinand & McDermott, 2002; Harris, 2006; Hosser, Windzio, & Greve, 2008; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000; Tyler et al., 2007; Zhang & Zhang, 2004).

Ahmed and Braithwaite (2005) conducted research to examine the effectiveness of reintegrative shaming on school bullying. This study focuses on the prediction of self-initiated bullying from family, school, personality, and shame management variables. For the sample of juveniles (n = 1,401) and their parents (n = 978), the Management of Shame State: Shame Acknowledgement and Shame Displacement instrument was developed to test the importance of shame management in relation to bullying. Their study showed that shame acknowledgment reduced the likelihood of bullying, whereas shame displacement increased it, and shame management partially mediated the effects of family, school, and personality variables on bullying (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004).

Harris (2006) conducted research that tested the implication of reintegrative shaming theory that social disapproval has an effect on the emotions offenders have. Using interviews with 720 participants who had been apprehended for driving while intoxicated and had recently attended a court proceeding or family group conference in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT), Harris found that shame-related emotions were predicted by perceptions of social disapproval. Moreover, comparisons between the court cases and family group conferences were not only consistent with expectations that RJ interventions would be more reintegrative but also showed that they were not perceived as less stigmatizing.

RJ Conferences: The Australian RISE

RJ conferences are designed to repair damage between the offender, the victim, and the community. These programs provide an environment in which offenders can be reintegrated into their communities and victims can return to their daily lives without fear. Therefore, the ultimate goal is to create a more cohesive community (Stickle, Connell, Wilson, & Gottfredson, 2008). More specifically, RJ programs repair the harm caused to victims and the community through a process of negotiation, mediation, victim empowerment, and reparation (Rodriguez, 2007). RJ programs are more closely related to the philosophy of the juvenile court than to the retributive philosophy that guides the adult criminal justice processing when the rehabilitation of not only juvenile but adult offenders is also the goal (Rodriguez, 2007).

According to Zehr (1990), the RJ paradigm begins with the assumption that “crime is a violation of people and relationships rather than merely a violation of law” (p. 181). Therefore, the most appropriate reaction to criminal behaviors is to repair the harm caused by the wrongful action (Newell, 2007). The criminal justice system should provide an opportunity for those who are most affected by the crime, such as the victim, the offender, and the community, to come together to discuss the act committed and attempt to understand what can be done to provide appropriate reparation (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2001).

Although RJ programs have received considerable attention from many scholars, the concept still remains problematic in definitional terms (Newell, 2007). However, key elements of RJ program are as follows:

All parties with a stake in a particular conflict or offense come together to collectively resolve how to deal with the aftermath of the conflict or offense and its implications for the future and

Offenders have the opportunity to acknowledge the impact of what they have done and to make reparation, and victims have the opportunity to have their harm acknowledged and amends made (Restorative Justice Consortium, 2006).

Australia and New Zealand have implemented RJ conferences as one form of early intervention, and they are being used increasingly throughout the world (McGarrell, 2001). In such conferences, all involved parties, including the juvenile offender, the victim, families of offenders and victims as supporters, and other supporting groups, are brought together. Trained facilitators are present to discuss the incident and the harm it has brought to the victim and the group of supporters (Tyler et al., 2007). During the conference, victims and supporters of offenders or victims have an opportunity to explain how they have been affected and harmed by the incident. After the conference, all participants reach agreement on how the juvenile offender can repay the victim and society, and they sign a reparation agreement, typically including an apology or, more often, community service (McGarrell, 2001).

Sherman et al. (2000) studied the levels of effectiveness of standard court processing and RISE. Using 1,300 cases of drunk driving, juvenile property crimes, juvenile shoplifting, and juvenile violent crimes, they found that diversionary conferences reduced juvenile violent offending rates by about 38 crimes per 100 offenders per year but found no differences in property and shoplifting offending rates between court and conference group. From this study, they concluded that RJ leads to lower recidivism or crime reducing effects on offenders charged with different kinds of offenses. The dynamics of each type of offense may create a different emotional climate and basis for legitimacy of legal intervention using court or conference processes.

However, one study found no significant differences in effects for various types of offenses. Comparing juveniles in an RJ program with juveniles having undergone regular court processing, Rodriguez (2007) measured the influence of an RJ program on recidivism in Maricopa County, Arizona, and found that juveniles in the RJ program showed lower rates of recidivism than those in the court proceeding. Although there were no significant effects between offense type/race and RJ, the study indicated that there were significant effects of the RJ program and gender and criminal records. For example, girls and offenders with minimal criminal histories were the most successful participants in the RJ program.

Arguing for the reform of our criminal justice system, Ferdinand and McDermott (2002) asserted that we need more variability in the manner in which offenders are sentenced and treated in terms of their offense and their needs. According to their study, “If we differentiate civic, social, and criminal offenders, we can also distinguish offenders who will respond to reintegrative shaming, focused professional treatment, secure custody, and specific social, moral, and psychological guidance” (Ferdinand & McDermott, 2002, p. 110). They advocated treating and punishing differently according to each offender’s offenses and needs, and that this perspective may be effective with all kinds of offenders.

Moreover, because early involvement in status offenses and delinquency can be a predictor of serious, violent, and chronic offending, McGarrell (2001) emphasized the importance of early interventions for very young offenders. In an evaluation of The Indianapolis Restorative Justice Experiment, an Australian-style RJ conference as an alternative response to juvenile offending, he tried to identify the effects of the RJ conferences and argued that they “can be successfully implemented in an urban U.S. setting” (McGarrell, 2001, p. 9). On the question of the participants’ attitudes toward the RJ conferencing as an alternative form to traditional court proceeding, it showed high level of offender and victim satisfaction, but offenders and parents in the traditional court proceedings were slightly more likely to express satisfaction (McGarrell, 2001). In terms of recidivism, juveniles who completed the RJ conference were found to be less likely to be rearrested than those who went through the traditional court proceedings. Males and females in the conference showed lower recidivism rates than those who went through court proceedings, but the difference was greater for females than for males (McGarrell, 2001).

Present Study

Most studies have supported the effectiveness of reintegrative shaming and RJ conference in the United States (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Harris, 2006; Hosser et al., 2008; McGarrell, 2001; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000), and the question regarding juvenile offenders’ own perceptions of RJ conference has been raised. The purpose of this study is to examine the effectiveness of RISE program by using different aspects from previous literatures. Most previous studies showed significant effects of RJ conference, including RISE, particularly on preventing recidivism (McGarrell, 2001; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000). Therefore, juvenile offenders’ own perceptions on this effect, preventing future offending, will be addressed in the present study. Moreover, one of the main purposes of RJ conference is to repair damages between offenders, victims, and the community, so the variables, repaying the victim and society, were included to examine juvenile offenders’ own perceptions on this purpose (Stickle et al., 2008). Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming theory (1989) has been the most influential theory, emphasizing that reintegrative shaming reduces reoffending by encouraging offenders to feel ashamed. Citing an example of a shaming process in Japan, he argued that apology is one of the important factors in interdependency and communitarianism, specific social conditions conducive to reintegrative shaming. Feeling repentance can be the predictor conducive to generate reintegrative shaming, so the variable, degree of feeling repentance, was included.

As one of the most popular RJ conference, RISE bases itself on Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming, and it is known as a major effort to conduct an experimental evaluation of the effectiveness of RJ conferences on repeat offending. During 1995 to 1999, Sherman, Braithwaite, Strang, and Barnes conducted a RISE in Australia consisting of four separate experiments: adult drinking and driving offenders, juvenile personal property criminals, juvenile shoplifters, and violent crime committed by offenders up to age 29. Individuals who committed offenses of drunk driving over .08 blood alcohol content included offenders of any age, juvenile property offenders with personal victims, juvenile shoplifters detected by store security officers, and youth violent criminals (below age 30) in the ACT, which participated in the Australian RISE. However, only three experiments including juvenile offenses were used in this study because of focusing on juvenile offenders.

Therefore, research hypotheses for the current study is as follows:

Hypothesis 1: Offenders who experienced RJ conferences will be more likely to perceive that this treatment will prevent future offenses than those who experienced traditional court processing.

Hypothesis 2: Offenders who experienced RJ conferences will be more likely to perceive that this treatment allowed them to repay the victim of the crime than were those who experienced traditional court processing.

Hypothesis 3: Offenders who experienced RJ conferences will be more likely to perceive that this treatment allowed them to repay society than those who experienced traditional court processing.

Hypothesis 4: Offenders who experienced RJ conferences will be more likely to perceive repentance for their crime than those who experienced traditional court processing.

Data and Method

Data/Sample

In this article, the data set Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) in Australia, 1995-1999 (ICPSR 2993) was used. Cases were sent to RISE from officers throughout the Australian Federal Police in the ACT region. This included uniformed patrol officers from each of the four Canberra police stations and its special “City Beat” officer in the center of the city and also from the Traffic Division and the Crime Branch. It also tried to include “middle-range offenses” in the conference, which are neither so trivial that they would be dealt with by a simple warning nor so serious that police would be reluctant to bypass the court system in favor of an experimental alternative. Initially, it was proposed that there were 150 cases in each of the two juvenile property experiments and 300 in the youth violence experiment. However, the research design was subsequently amended on the basis of case availability after data collection had commenced. It was difficult to find juvenile offenders in this data set. For example, in many juvenile offense cases, there was no information about the victims who were brought to the conference, sometimes offenders rejected conferencing, offenders reoffended immediately after being assigned to conference, or offenders repeatedly failed to show up for the conference.

The data are from RISE comparing the effects of court and conferences for a select group of offenders. A total of 249 juveniles were randomly assigned to RISE or standard court processing. Data were then taken from interviews with the juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or conference proceedings. Variables that were investigated included whether the respondents thought the court or conference would prevent future offenses, how much the offenders should repay the victim and society, whether the respondents would accept responsibilities for their acts, whether the respondent would perceive any repentance, and how much the court and conference made the respondents perceive fairness during the proceeding and respect for the justice system.

Demographic variables in this data collection included offenders’ country of birth, age, gender, years of education, income, and employment. Among the sample of 249 juvenile offenders, 12 were excluded from the analysis because of missing values, 49.8% were assigned to the standard court, and 50.2% were assigned to the conference. The sample of 249 juvenile offenders included juvenile property offenders (44.6%), juvenile shoplifters (34.5%), and juvenile violent offenders (20.9%). In addition, the variables income and employment status could not be used as predictors that explain juvenile offenders’ perceptions on prevention, repayment, and feeling repentance due to large number of missing values. Among a total of 249 juvenile offenders, more than 161 (65%) of them were unemployed as full-time students and did not have any incomes. In this data set, juvenile property offending was classified into two groups, one focusing on personal victims and the other on shoplifting. There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics between the juvenile offenders who were assigned to RISE and those who went through court processing. Therefore, using these 249 juvenile offenders, including offenders who were randomly assigned either to RISE or court processing, to evaluate their perceptions of RISE would not be problematic.

In our research, comparisons will be made between the effects of standard court processing with the effects of a RJ intervention known as diversionary conferencing for several juvenile offenses. Using four separate multiple regressions, the study will determine whether participation in RISE can explain juveniles’ perceptions on preventing future offending, repaying the victim, repaying the society, and the degree of the offenders’ feelings of repentance. In addition, the variables gender, age, offense type, and years of education of the juvenile offenders were added because there have been numerous studies which found differential effects of RJ in terms of gender, age, offense type, and education levels (McGarrell, 2001; Rodriguez, 2007).

Dependent variables.

Preventing future offense (The conference/court will help prevent you from breaking the law in the future.)

Repaying the victim (The conference/court allowed you to repay the victim of your crime for harm that you caused them.)

Repaying the society (The conference/court allowed you to repay society for your offense.)

The degree of feeling repentance (You regret putting other people at risk as a result of your offense.)

The data were taken from interviews with juvenile offenders to measure their perceptions after the court or conference processing. All the dependent variables (Table 1) were measured by Likert-type scales; 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree. All the dependent variables are the same in that they have a positive scale value; 1 means usually negative perception for the conference or court processing and 5 means positive perception for the conference or court processing.

Table 1.

Variables Used in the Analysis

Metric variables	Values	Average	SD	Valid cases
Preventing future offenses	1~5	3.96	0.927	237
Repaying the victim	1~5	3.35	1.172	237
Repaying society	1~5	3.35	1.114	237
Feeling repentance	1~5	3.56	1.029	237
Years of education	0~12	9.09	1.783	249
Age	11~26	16.46	2.272	249

Dummy variables	Values	n	%	Valid cases

Treatment	Court	124	49.8	249
	Conference	125	50.2
Gender	Males	189	75.9	249
	Females	60	24.1
Offense type	Violent	52	20.9	249
	Nonviolent	197	79.1

Note: Dependent variables are preventing future offenses, repaying the victim, repaying society, and feeling repentance. Independent variables are years of education, age, treatment, gender, and offense type.

Independent variables

All independent variables (Table 1) are either dummy or continuous variables. The variable observed treatment was recoded into a dummy variable (0 = court, 1 = conference). The variables gender, age, years of offenders’ education, and offense types were added as characteristic variables for the juvenile offenders. The mean years of education was 9.09 (median = 9.00, range = 0~12), 16.46 for offenders’ age. A total of 75.9% of the juveniles were males, whereas 24.1% were females, and 79.1% of the offenders committed nonviolent offenses (property and shoplifting offense), whereas 20.9% committed violent offenses.

Results

Beginning with an assessment of the degree of overlap in preventing future offenses and contrasting the standard court processing with the RJ conference processing, attending an RJ conference, instead of attending a standard court, appeared to be more effective on all the variables, including preventing future offenses, repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance. The respondents who attended an RJ conference reported more positive perceptions on preventing future offenses than did the respondents who attended standard court processing. Nearly 43.5% of the respondents in RJ conferences stated that conference processing can prevent future offending as compared with 38.4% of the respondents who attended standard court processing. Moreover, more than 36% of the respondents who participated in RJ conferences said that conference processing can make them repay the victim and society as compared with less than 20% of the respondents in standard court processing. In addition, the respondents who attended RJ conferences had a greater degree of a feeling of repentance compared with the respondents who attended standard court processing.

The associations between the dependent variables (the perceptions on preventing future offense, repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance) and a treatment (RISE or standard court processing) that the juvenile offenders went through are also examined. According to Pearson chi-square and gamma values, the relationships between the juvenile offenders’ perceptions and attending RJ conference were statistically significant, except for the perceptions on preventing future offense (p = .836). Except for the juvenile offenders’ perceptions on preventing future offense, the perceptions on others were indicated as positive associations, meaning that if the offenders participated in the RJ conference instead of standard court processing, the perceptions regarding repaying the victim (p = .000) and society (p = .000) and the degree of feeling repentance (p = .022) would be increased.

As a preliminary analysis, an independent sample t test was conducted to see the differences between juveniles who were assigned to courts and RISE in terms of the perceptions on their future offenses, repaying the victim/society, and the degree of feeling repentance. The two groups of juvenile offenders who were randomly assigned to either court or RISE were matched along with their demographic conditions. The mean of juvenile offenders’ age in RISE group was 16.61 years, and 16.29 years for juvenile offenders in the court group. The mean of educational level for RISE groups was 9.10, and 9.07 for court group. The gender and offense type of two groups were also matched. RISE group included 80% of males and 20% of females, and 70% of males and 30% females were included in court group. In the RISE group, 22.4% of juveniles were involved in violent offense and 77.6% of them were involved in nonviolent offense, whereas 19.4% of offense type was violent and 80.6% was nonviolent for the court group.

For the perception of preventing future offense, juvenile offenders who were processed by the courts had a mean of 3.92 (SD = 1.070) and who were processed on the RISE had a mean of 4.01 (SD = 0.757). The mean difference was not statistically significant. However, the perceptions of repaying the victim (M = 2.96, SD = 1.210 for the court group; M = 3.75, SD = 0.987 for RISE group)/society (M = 2.90, SD = 1.105 for the court group; M = 3.81, SD = 0.927 for RISE group) and the degree of feeling repentance (M = 3.40, SD = 1.073 for the court group; M = 3.71, SD = 0.964 for RISE group) were significantly different between juveniles in the court and RISE. An independent sample t test also showed significant differences in the perceptions of repaying the victim (t = 5.549, p = .000)/society (t = 6.831, p = .000) and the degree of feeling repentance (t = 2.346, p = .020) between the two groups. Therefore, juvenile offenders in RISE were more likely to perceive that RISE allowed them to repay the victim/society and express repentance for their crime. There were no significant differences in those perceptions in terms of offenders’ gender, but we found significant differences along with offense types. Juveniles who committed nonviolent offenses were more likely to perceive that RISE will prevent future offense (t = −2.913, p = .005) and allowed them to repay the victim (t = −2.715, p = .007). Standard multiple regression was conducted to determine the ability of the independent variables (treatment, gender, age, offense type, and years of education) to explain variation in the positive perceptions on preventing future offense, repaying the victim, repaying society, and the degree of feeling repentance. Four separate multiple regressions analyses were conducted.

Using the enter method, a multiple regression was conducted to determine which independent variables (treatment, gender, age, offense type, and years of education) were predictors for the dependent variables. Enter method means entering all independent variables, one at a time, into the model regardless of significant contribution (Mertler & Vannatta, 2005). Because there have been no theoretical models yet, and this data set has a relatively low number of cases, the enter method, the simultaneous method, would be the safest one to use (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2000).

The correlation between the juvenile offenders’ perceptions on preventing future offense (Pearson correlation = .125, p = .048), repaying the victim (Pearson correlation = .399, p = .000), repaying society (Pearson correlation = .450, p = .000), and feeling repentance (Pearson correlation = .114, p = .061) and the participation in RISE showed statistically significant relationship. The model summary and the ANOVA table indicates that the overall model of the five independent variables (treatment, gender, age, offense type, and years of education) significantly predict positive perceptions on preventing future offenses, adjusted R² = .063, F(5, 233) = 3.352, p = .006. Moreover, it shows that the overall model of the five independent variables significantly generated positive perceptions on repaying the victim, adjusted R² = .193, F(5, 233) = 9.394, p = .000, and repaying society, adjusted R² = .229, F(5, 233) = 11.442, p = .000. However, the overall model of the five independent variables moderately generated offenders’ feelings of repentance, adjusted R² = .026, F(5, 233) = 1.975, p = .084. The variance in explaining positive perceptions on each variable is small. In this data set, 249 juveniles were randomly selected to participate in either RISE or the standard court processing, but only 237 juveniles were used in the analysis. Moreover, respondents were interviewed just after the court or conference processing. Therefore, if the interview had been conducted after 2 or 3 years, the variance in explaining positive perceptions on each variable might have been increased and the long-term effects of the RJ conference could have been identified.

Table 2 provides the multiple regression results. A summary of regression coefficients indicates that the five independent variables (treatment, gender, age, offense type, year of education) significantly contribute to the positive perceptions on preventing future offending. However, rather than participating RISE, offenders’ age and level of education contributed to the positive perceptions on preventing future offending. Those who were younger and had higher educational levels were more likely to perceive that this treatment will prevent future offending.

Table 2.

Multiple Regression Results for Preventing Future Offenses, Repaying the Victim, Repaying the Society, and the Degree of Feeling Repentance

	DVs
IVs	Preventing future offenses	Repaying the victim	Repaying the society	The degree of feeling repentance
Treatment	.110	.409***	.476***	.142*
Gender	.114	−.039	−.118	−.066
Years of education	.248*	.183	.116	.128
Age	−.284*	−.270*	−.236*	−.268*
Offense type	.110	.095	.016	−.089
F	3.352**	9.394***	11.442***	1.975*
df	236	236	236	236
Adjusted R²	.063	.193	.229	.026

Note: IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable. The numbers shown are standardized regression coefficients.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

The multiple regression results indicated that RISE significantly contributed to positive perceptions regarding repayment of the victim and society. Those who experienced RJ conferences were more likely to perceive that this treatment allowed them to repay the victim and society for the crime than those who had experienced traditional court processing. Moreover, it was also found that younger offenders were more likely to perceive the repayment of the victim and society. The multiple regression results demonstrated that treatment significantly contributed to the degree of feelings of repentance. Those who experienced RJ conferences and younger offenders were more likely to express repentance for their crimes than those who had experienced traditional court processing. The overall results about offenders’ age are somewhat consistent with McGarrell’s (2001) study that RJ programs are particularly appropriate for very young offenders.

Conclusion and Discussion

The important issue addressed in this article is whether those who experienced RJ conference were more likely to perceive that their future offending was reduced compared with those who went through regular court processing. The results indicate that RJ conferences do not have a significant influence on the juvenile offenders’ perceptions of future offending. However, it was found that the participation in RJ conference is a significant predictor of positive perceptions on repaying regarding repaying the victim, repaying the society, and the degree of feeling repentance. Simply put, those who experienced RJ conferences are significantly more likely to perceive that they were able to repay the victim and repay society than those who had experienced traditional court processing. Moreover, those who experienced RJ conferences were significantly more likely to perceive repentance for their crime. Another interesting finding from this study is that juvenile offenders’ positive perceptions on preventing future offending, repaying the victim/society, and the degree of feeling repentance is correlated with their age. Similar to McGarrell’s (2001) study, emphasizing the importance of early interventions for very young offenders, younger offenders were more likely to perceive positive effects on preventing future offending, repaying the victim/society, and the degree of feeling repentance compared with the older offenders. Especially for the perception on preventing future offending and the degree of feeling repentance, offenders’ age was the most significant predictor. Examining the consistency with Sherman et al.’s (2000) study that juvenile charged with different kinds of offense would be affected differently however, there were no differential effects based on the type of offense for the positive perceptions.

There are many appealing features of the RJ conference. For example, they are found to be more satisfying for victims of crime (Strang & Sherman, 2006), and they have many positive psychological effects on offenders (Barnes, 1999; Poulson, 2003). Therefore, even if the RJ conference did not lead to more positive effects than traditional court processing, they might have social value and therefore would be publicly popular (Roberts & Stalans, 2004), provided they did not actually increase reoffending. It should be noted that the effectiveness of RJ programs has to be tested in terms of not only their general effects but also the perceptions of offenders. Focusing on general effects such as victim satisfaction or recidivism rate, many researchers have found support for RJ programs (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2004; Harris, 2006; Hosser et al., 2008; McGarrell, 2001; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000). However, the studies exploring the impact of offenders’ own perceptions have rarely been conducted. Examining the effects of RJ programs, recidivism rate was the most commonly tested aspect of the general effects (McGarrell, 2001; Rodriguez, 2007; Sherman et al., 2000). Other features that have been explored include victim satisfaction and changes in the attitude of the offenders (Sherman et al., 2000). Using different facets from previous studies to explore the effects of RJ program is necessary because one of the main purposes of an RJ program is to repair damages between all involved parties, including offenders, victims, and the community. Furthermore, scrutinizing offenders’ own perceptions of an RJ program, addressing the prevention effect of repaying victims, and discovering how repentance may change the offender’s view of society are also important to unveil undiscovered effects of RJ programs.

Some limitations of this article are that this study focused only on three types of juvenile offenders, such as juvenile property criminals, shoplifters, and youth violent criminals, so it cannot be said that the results in this study represent all juvenile offenders’ perceptions. Moreover, we examined differential effects based on their criminal history or offenders’ race, but there were no variables for representing juvenile offenders’ prior records and race in the original raw data. Focusing on the recidivism rate, there is a study that measured the influence of an RJ program along with juvenile offenders’ race, offense type, gender, and criminal records (Rodriguez, 2007) and found that there were effects of gender and criminal records, whereas there were no significant program effects in terms of offense type and race. Therefore, for further research, it is necessary to examine the differential perceptions of RJ in terms of offenders’ prior record or race. Another limitation of this study will be about data collecting procedure. Respondents were interviewed directly after the court or conference processing. Therefore, if the interview had been conducted after 2 or 3 years, the long-term effects of the RJ conference on the offenders’ perceptions could have been identified.

Drawing on the works of Braithwaite (1989) and Sherman (2000), there are other facets that can be tested. Future research should examine other sides of the effectiveness of the RJ conference as compared with traditional court processing. This study tested the utility of one particular aspect of reintegrative shaming theory and the RJ conference, focusing on the juvenile offenders’ own perceptions about RISE. Rather than examining the effectiveness of RISE in terms of recidivism rates, the present study explored undiscovered impacts of RISE programs in terms of the juvenile offenders’ perceptions. Braithwaite’s theory focused on the emotional dynamics, emphasizing that “conscience is a much more powerful weapon to control misbehavior than punishment” (Braithwaite, 1989, p. 71) and that it is the conscience-building effects of shaming that give it superiority over control strategies that are based on changing the rewards and costs of crime. Thus, reintegrative shaming implies that “emotions like shame or guilt” play a critical role, and RJ programs, including RISE, have adopted these theoretical perspectives. Therefore, research findings from this study, what specific conditions signified the offenders’ positive perceptions on prevention/repayment issues and feeling repentance, may assist scholars who are studying RJ and RJ program administrators and can provide a greater understanding of the processes and emotional dynamics in RJ programs.

Braithwaite’s reintegrative shaming has been one of the most influential criminological theories, with emphasis on the fact that reintegrative shaming reduces reoffending by encouraging offenders to feel ashamed. According to Braithwaite,

By increasing the capacity of societies to shame, we will increase the extent to which the power of shaming can be harnessed for both good and ill. Shaming can be used to stultify diversity which is the stuff of intellectual, political, and artistic debate and progress, or simply to oppress diversity which is harmless.

Shaming is rough-and-ready justice which runs great risk for wronging the innocent, and that the most important safeguard is for shaming to be reintegrative so that communication channels remain open to learning of injustice, and social bonds remain intact to facilitate apology and recompense. Reintegrative shaming is not only more effective than stigmatization; it is also more just. (Braithwaite, 1989, pp. 159-161)

Examining the relationship between formal sanctions and crime becomes especially important in the current period of expanding alternatives to straight probation and incarceration, such as diversion programs or specialized drug courts (Miethe, Lu, & Reese, 2000). These kinds of formal sanctions are influenced by Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming.

However, because reintegrative shaming or experiencing the RJ conference may not always be effective, it is necessary to conduct more research on reintegrative shaming in terms of various variables. The potential benefits of an RJ program remain to be fully realized in the United States, even though many scholars have argued that RJ provides an appropriate alternative to existing mechanisms found within the juvenile court (Bazemore & Umbreit, 1995). Although many studies have examined the actual effectiveness of the RJ program focusing on recidivism (Sherman et al., 2000; Tyler et al., 2007), we continue to need to address the particular circumstances such as which RJ can be most effective or which type of offenders are most likely to be affected after experiencing the programs. Moreover, more detailed comparisons between the RJ conference and the standard court processing will be needed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahmed

Braithwaite

(2004). “What, me ashamed?” Shame management and school bullying. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 269-294.

Ahmed

Braithwaite

(2005). Forgiveness, shaming, shame and bullying. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 38, 298-323.

Barnes

G. C.

(1999). Procedural justice in two contexts: Testing the fairness of diversionary conferencing for intoxicated drivers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Pennsylvania.

Bazemore

Umbreit

M. S.

(1995). Rethinking the sanctioning function in juvenile court: Retributive or restorative responses to youth crime. Crime & Delinquency, 41, 296-316.

Benson

(1990). Emotions and adjudication: Status degradation among white-collar criminals. Justice Quarterly, 7, 515-528.

Brace

Kemp

Snelgar

(2000). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for windows (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Braithwaite

(1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Elis

Simpson

(1995). Informal sanction threats and corporate crime: Additive versus multiplicative models. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 32, 399-424.

Ferdinand

T. N.

McDermott

M. J.

(2002). Joining punishment and treatment in substantive equality. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13, 87-116.

10.

Harris

(2006). Reintegrative shaming, shame, and criminal justice. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 327-346.

11.

Hosser

Windzio

Greve

(2008). Guilt and shame as predictors of recidivism: A longitudinal study with young prisoners. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 138-152.

12.

Latimer

Dowden

Muise

(2001). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis (Research and Statistics Division Methodological Series). Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Department of Justice.

13.

Levi

(2002). Suite justice or sweet charity? Some explorations of shaming and incapacitating business fraudsters. Punishment and Society, 4, 147-163.

14.

Levi

Suddle

(1989). White-collar crime, shamelessness, and disintegration: The control of tax evasion in Pakistan. Journal of Law and Society, 61, 489-505.

15.

Makkai

Braithwaite

(1994). The dialectics of corporate deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 347-373.

16.

McCold

Wachtel

(1998). Restorative policing experiment: The Bethlehem Pennsylvania police family group conferencing project. Pipersville, PA: Community Service Foundation.

17.

McGarrell

E. F.

(2001). Restorative justice conferences as an early response to young offenders. Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

18.

Mertler

C. A.

Vannatta

R. A.

(2005). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical application and interpretation (3rd ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing.

19.

Miethe

T. D.

Reese

(2000). Reintegrative shaming and recidivism risks in drug court: Explanations for some unexpected findings. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 522-541.

20.

Murphy

Harris

(2007). Shaming, shame and recidivism: A test of reintegrative shaming theory in the white-collar crime context. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 900-917.

21.

Newell

(2007). Face to face with violence and its effect: Restorative justice practice at work. Journal of Community and Criminal Justice, 54, 227-238.

22.

Poulson

(2003). A third voice: A review of empirical research on the psychological outcomes of restorative justice. Utah Law Review, 01, 167-203.

23.

Restorative Justice Consortium. (2006). Available from http://www.restorativejustice.org.uk

24.

Roberts

J. V.

Stalans

L. J.

(2004). Restorative sentencing: Exploring the views of the public. Social Justice Research, 17, 315-334.

25.

Rodriguez

(2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 355-379.

26.

Sherman

L. W.

Strang

Woods

D. J.

(2000). Recidivism patterns in the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Center for Restorative Justice, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University.

27.

Shoemaker

D. J.

(2005). Theories of delinquency: An examination of explanations of delinquent behavior (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

28.

Stickle

W. P.

Connell

N. M.

Wilson

D. M.

Gottfredson

(2008). An experimental evaluation of teen courts. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 4, 137-163.

29.

Strang

Barnes

G. C.

Braithwaite

Sherman

L. W.

(1999). Experiments in restorative policing: A progress report on the Canberra Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE). Canberra: Australian National University.

30.

Strang

Sherman

L. W.

(2006). Restorative justice to reduce victimization. In Walsh

B. C.

Farrington

D. P.

(Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims and places (pp. 147-160). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.

31.

Tyler

T. R.

Sherman

Strang

Barnes

G. C.

Woods

(2007). Reintegrative shaming, procedural justice, and recidivism: The engagement of offenders’ psychological mechanism in the Canberra RISE drinking-and-driving experiment. Law and Society Review, 41, 553-585.

32.

Zehr

(1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.

33.

Zhang

(2004). Reintegrative shaming and predatory delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 41, 433-453.