Abstract
Welcome to another year of Criminal Justice Policy Review (CJPR). We are pleased to start the year with a double special issue on restorative justice and community corrections, which will be contained in Issues 1 and 2 of Volume 26 of the journal. Before providing comments on the topic and a summary of the included articles, we would like to offer an update on the status of CJPR and some current plans.
During the past 10 years, CJPR has sought . . . to serve scholars and professionals committed to the study of criminal justice policies and programs through both quantitative and qualitative methods . . . [and] . . . to serve as a bridge between academics, policy makers, and practitioners in the field of criminal justice by publishing sound empirical research that addresses important issues in crime and justice and examines the effectiveness of policies and programs. (Myers, 2006, pp. 3-4)
We believe that the journal has attained these goals and will continue to do so in the future. Since 2005, annual manuscript submissions have risen from less than 40 to nearly 120; our manuscript acceptance rate has declined to 31%; published articles are heavily used and cited; and our pages contain scientifically rigorous research produced by well-known scholars in our discipline.
As another sign of the growth and development of CJPR, a few years ago we began publishing six annual issues, an increase from the previous four. We are pleased to announce that, beginning with the current Volume 26 of 2015, we will be publishing eight issues per year. This change is due to both the quantity and quality of manuscripts we receive, and it will allow authors to have their work fully published in a timely manner. This increase in annual issues also is in line with that of several other highly regarded journals published by SAGE, and we greatly appreciate all of the assistance and support we receive from SAGE in publishing the journal.
Finally, I (Myers) would like to thank and recognize a number of individuals who have contributed greatly to the success of the journal. To begin, when I took over as an Editor in 2005, one of my first tasks was to put together a 40-member group of prominent scholars to serve on the editorial board. I am happy to say that most of the original members still are serving on the board, and they have devoted a great deal of time and effort toward reviewing articles, encouraging article submissions, publishing their own research in our pages, and generally promoting the journal. I know that the success of the journal has been influenced substantially by the editorial board, and I thank all prior and current board members for their outstanding contributions.
In addition to the editorial board, my colleague Dennis Giever has served as book/media reviewer editor for more than 10 years, and I have had the good fortune of working with a number of excellent graduate students who have served as managing editor of the journal. Specifically, Phil Stinson, Jason Spraitz, Jeremy Olson (currently associate editor), EmmaLeigh Kirchner, and Paul Lucas have provided valuable assistance with the day-to-day operations of CJPR, and I have enjoyed seeing them develop as both students and scholars. Thank you all.
Context of the Current Special Issue
For as long as man has recorded, two primary purposes of criminal justice have been to keep the public safe and to punish offenders, in pursuit of the ultimate goal of betterment of the human species. This is evident in reading the first paragraph of the oldest existing legal code, that of Hammurabi: . . . then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak . . . and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. (“Hammurabi’s Code of Laws,” n.d.)
A full read of the entire translated and remaining code leaves the reader with an understanding that, to Hammurabi and his people, it was important to acknowledge the harm imposed on the victim by an offender’s actions. When the victim was a citizen, responsibility for reparation of harm caused by criminal actions was situated squarely upon the offender. In non-capital offenses, the offender would be required to repay the victim equivalent to the loss incurred. Unless persons or property of the Temple or Church were directly harmed, Hammurabi administered punishments in direct favor and benefit of the victim.
A somewhat different model of public safety and offender punishment became formalized in Europe during Medieval Times. Commonly referred to as the “King’s Peace,” this model shifted the focus of harm away from the direct victim and onto the King (Lambert, 2009). According to the principles of the King’s Peace, the crown was the protector of its population; as such the crown had both the power and obligation to care for the people within its boundaries. If a person caused harm to any other person(s) under the protection of the King, it was as if the offender had harmed the King himself. As such, the King would render justice for this affront to the crown. The offender was now responsible to repay the King for this affront, rather than the direct victim of the crime. To an extent, this model served to remove the victim from the crime.
American criminal justice was founded closer to the principles of the King’s Peace than to Hammurabi’s Code. Legislators at varying levels of government, often far removed from the constituency represented or harmed in the processes of criminal justice, pen statutes and affix maximum punishments for violations to these codes. When someone is charged with a violation of these laws, judges hear arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys about the guilt or innocence of the alleged offender. Witnesses, including the direct victim of the harmful act, testify to help establish the finding of criminal culpability for the offender. When found guilty, the offender is sentenced to some form of correctional intervention, which may or may not include payment of restitution to the direct victim. The most common form of intervention long has been supervision under terms and conditions of probation. Largely due to the “get tough” policies of the 1980s and 1990s, the United States experienced a large increase in the number of offenders sentenced to jails and prisons. Of the 6,937,600 offenders under adult correctional supervision in 2012 (Glaze & Herberman, 2013), 1,570,400 were incarcerated in prisons (Carson & Golinelli, 2013).
At first blush, the deterrent and retributive nature of American criminal justice may appear congruent with our beliefs, especially so for the general public. Yet, to a growing number of researchers, practitioners, policy makers, analysts, and other stakeholders, concerns abound. Researchers at the Vera Institute estimated the cost of prison, per inmate, averaged US$31,286 in 2010 (Henrichson & Delaney, 2012). The ability of released offenders to reintegrate back into society is also questionable. Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014) tracked a group of incarcerated offenders released in 2005 and found that 67.8% were rearrested after 3 years, while 76.6% were rearrested within 5 years. For offenders involved with any criminal justice intervention, there have been consistent patterns of official recidivism of 45% to 55% (Abrams, Shannon, & Sangalang, 2008; Unruh, Gau, & Waintrup, 2009). The burden of these failures seems especially salient in a time when governments, schools, communities, and businesses are experiencing budget overruns and reduced funding from available taxpayer contributions.
To proponents of restorative justice philosophy, the increased costs of incarceration combined with the continued failures of the traditional criminal justice system point toward the need to shift from primarily placing offenders under some form of minimal correctional supervision or incarceration to more efficient and effective sentences. Instead of continuing with old practices, restorative justice and community corrections supporters call for moving the system toward a comprehensive strategy that requires active accountability from offenders to fix their harms; substantially enhances the voice of the direct victim in the decisional processes; mobilizes communities to engage in the protection of all members; and develops evidence-based programs and interventions that effectively build prosocial competencies in offenders. Not all proponents agree, however, on exactly what restorative justice is or what community corrections should look like. As these discussions move forward, supporters will continue to talk, write, and debate with each other about the rationale and utility of restorative justice and community corrections programs and practices.
CJPR has dedicated this two-part special issue to highlighting contemporary research and practical efforts related to developing community corrections and restorative justice. One article (by Dawkins & Sorenson) reminds readers that, by themselves, the strategies of residential placement and detention may do little to curb recidivism. Two other articles (Barnes; Scheuerman & Keith) offer some insight to the ideas of procedural fairness and offender voice, and suggest their presence in justice system processes can motivate offenders to take ownership for their behaviors. Readers will also find three articles (Crocker; Nelund; Wood) that discuss community mobilization and obstacles incurred when developing and implementing restorative justice programs both in the community and in prisons. In separate pieces, mental health courts (Dollar & Ray) and veterans courts (Baldwin & Rukus) are observed and analyzed for their utilization of restorative justice processes and concepts. The remaining article in the double special issue examines the impact of a victim impact curriculum, while using random assignment of program participants (Baglivio). Taken together, we believe the findings of these nine articles support the promise of restorative justice and community corrections. As the editors, we hope that the included articles will help further policy discussions and inspire others to implement or investigate new strategies.
Finally, on behalf of the restorative justice community, we would like to take this opportunity to extend hopes for a long and happy (semi-)retirement to Dr. Howard Zehr, the “grandfather of restorative justice.”