Is Saying Sorry Better than Prison?

that’s wonderful

Hey anth05, that looks like a great program in Minneapolis. Do you know if they have any data on how their program affect recidivism? I’m really sympathetic to these approaches in general, but it’s always nice if there are numbers you can reference that show they actually reduce future crime.

I’ve heard about it a while ago and thought it was a really good idea. Happy to see the proof that it works!!

i know rjca has evaluation on the recidivism rate in the program as compared to prison and if you can’t find it on their website, http://www.rjca-inc.org, i would try contacting them directly.  hopefully you can find what you are looking for there!

I would just like to say how refreshing it is to see comments that are actually about the article, well thought out, and positive–tired of all the negativity surrounding forums these days. Also, I think restorative justice is just what we need, how many people have been punished for mistakes and the punishment far exceeded what was necessary for the crime? Its wonderful that kids are given a chance to correct their mistakes before they ruin their lives!

I’m here to tell you, my Mom used that same practice when I was little. It certantly taught me better manners when I was little. By showing those responsible what the other person goes through emotionaly, physicaly &/or financialy….well, it certainly made me think twice…..alot!

For minor offenses, i think this idea is good. It works if the individual, though, truly has a conscious and is eager to improve. I think if such a thing works, it would be a great alleviation on an already burgeoning prison population because it might reduce repeat offenders by not only holding them accountable, but by teaching them there are better ways to go about things. But the success relies on a couple of things-first, a justice system and society willing to work with it. It is pointless if it is turned into yet another revolving door for repeat offenders. I think it should be a first offense solution, but repeat offenders or offenders who escalate to more violence should be punished more severely. It should not be a “Just apologize to the victim and be on your way” kind of thing. Secondly, the individual must be willing to do something to change-you cannot have a psychotic gang member, say, use this route.

I don’t think this idea is a good idea unless child criminals also faces hard prison time. It should be used in conjuction with jail time. Also kids who go to prison should not be allowed out until they pass some sort of academic test to prove they can now read, write, operate a computer, make a speech, do basic math etc…..

Mr. Price, In answer to your call to action — we couldn’t agree more! We have adopted this approach in Baltimore & across MD. Our court diversion program is called Community Conferencing (CC) http://www.communityconferencing.org. The juveniles who go thru CC versus the judicial system are 60% less likely to re-offend (study conducted by Dept. of Juv. Services). Imagine if we could expand this work across America, as you suggest.

Obama is looking for ways to use more stimulus money.  This sounds like a great way to spend money because with the reduction in recidivism, there would lower cost for corrections in the future and it would create more working tax paying members of society instead of incarcerating our youth.  For what it cost to incarcerate a kid, we could send him to college.  I think college may be cheaper in many states. 
 
I also agree with babsc72, it is refreshing to not read the ranting of lunatics in this article response.  

Great idea!  CA is definitely in need of this.  We have the worst judicial/penal system and could benefit from something like this.  Hopefully our lawmakers won’t be too afraid of losing their positions and will implement this.  Better yet, this is something Sen. Webb, VA, may want to include in his recommendations.  In case you are unaware, Sen Webb opened a senate hearing investigation in March on the judicial and penal systems in the US.  I applaude him for taking a stand and doing what is right for overall reform…not being afraid of appearing to be soft on crime but being realistic about crime.  I certainly hope CA legislatures are taking note.

We are a punitive society and the ‘rehab’ programs available for ‘offenders’ are designed, intended, and performed as a punishment. Any concept of rehabilitation is lost in a punitive construct, and there are much too many benefits for offenders–youth camps–tv spots-grants for teens in gangs and on drugs–housing for felons–et cetera for any benefit to be realized in an institutionalized construct.

I would say that a little critical thought needs to take place, and far more actual information needs to be known than is laid out here, or in the report that is referenced, before people rush off into praise for this program. First, it is necessary to know if the lower recidivist rates for particpants is real progress, or if reflects only a self-selecting “cherry-picking” — that is, the least likely to reoffend are the most inclined to be referred and to participate, while the hard cases who will reoffend whenever released are either not given the opportunity to participate, or are so belligerent that they won’t. Some suggestion that this is in fact what is happening is given by the following data in the report: “In 2006, the combined reoffending rate for youth conferencing was 37.7% – this compared to 52.1% for community sentences and 70.7% for custodial sentences.”   The differential in rates may be explained wholly by the selection of the least hard core offenders for this program, followed by community service for the middling group, and jail for the real nasty types. In this case, the program itself makes zero real difference. I would think that one way to know whether this program is real, or pie in the sky, is to measure the total recidivist rate, for all offenders, in or out of the program. If the total rates have remained relatively unchanged, then the (relatively) benign characters are being shunted into this thing, and not reoffending, as they would not anyway, while the real bad guys are left untouched and unchanged.  Unfortunately, the study provides no information about this, and even says that it has not undertaken an examination of evidence for the program’s “general effectiveness,” but has assumed it. Big assumption makes study very small.There may be other reasons for supporting this program — there is a kind of natural justice at work in involving the victim, and in confronting the perpetrator with the human face of the harm he has done– but whether this program actually reduces crime, nothing here tells us one whit.  

I am not surprised by the results and this program should be extended as both the victim and perpetrator benefit from it.Sending people to jail doesnt usually help a person much and they only bring more problems to the community when released,and does not usually help the victim who needs for the perpetrator to see the wrong they have done to them and the damage it has caused.The perpetrator can then see how he has affected a real person face to face and see for himself the pain he has caused.

Restorative justice has been used for years… I participated in a program as an attorney more than a decade ago and it is still in use today in many progressive communities.  There are several other benefits that were not mentioned in the above article.  For many offenders/criminals the reprocussions of their criminal behavior on victims is something they never contemplate nor face.  Having to “see” the consequences of their actions and the real/human results of what they did can have an amazing affect on future behavior.  Likewise, for victims it provides a tremendous healing affect in many cases.  Rarely, does a victim get to face the offender and explain the devestation/fear/ramifications that went along with the crime.  Victims/Offenders/Cases should be closely scrutinized before this approach is applied, but when done correctly the results can be tremendous.For information on programs with a lengthy history please contact the Restorative Justice Program /Legal Aid for Institutionalized Persons (LAIP) at the University of Wisconsin–Madison Law School.

Robin65,You say “I’m not surprised by the results,” but what exactly are the results? The article, and the report cited in it, do not actually reveal the results. (See my earlier post).  This approach may satisfy your ideas about what might work, but what the article, and this thread, lack is any evidence that it has madf one bit of real difference in rates of recidivism. I hope it will work, but for all we are told here, it is just a hope.

I think this is a really phenomenal breakthrough in youth prosecution. Some people may argue that it’s too leniant of a system to use in more serious crimes, but I think it’s perfect in that the affect it has on the “young criminals” is proportionate to the level of the crime committed. Say, for instance, that a youth broke into someone’s shop and vandalized some of the merchandise. They would have a talk with the shop owner about the effects their actions had on that person psychologically and economically, and it would cause them to consider their actions on some level. That would be a somewhat minor crime with similarly minor effects and consequences. Now, say that one of these so-called criminals committed a murder. No matter how cold-blooded someone may be (possibly with the exception of sociopathic tendencies, etc.) if they were forced to meet face-to-face with one of the victim’s loved ones and see first-hand how that person’s life was torn apart by their actions, it would cause a similarly deep level of self-evaluation and consideration for what they had done. We’re all human beings. Regardless of someone’s past or their outlook or explanation for their actions, being put in a situation like that would have an affect on them emotionally. It would cause them to take a look at themselves and the way they’re living and the way they see things a great deal more than being thrown behind bars and left to rot with their desire for revenge and their anger.

Hey David, I appreciate the skepticism and I think you raise fair points. A few responses:

1) Page 15 of the report gives the distribution of offenses that kids who enter the youth conference system are charged with. They don’t compare it to the distribution of total offenses but they describe it as “a wide range” in terms of seriousness and, just looking at the chart, it strikes me as pretty similar to what the total distribution probably looks like. If that’s the case, the program would reduce recidivism overall.

2) This is a working program, not a scientific study. Even if you compared the total recidivism rates in earlier years to the recidivism rate during the course of the YC trial, that still wouldn’t be proof the program reduces reoffending, strictly speaking. A sufficiently motivated skeptic could find any number of factors that weren’t held constant across the two time periods (did the economic climate change? did the schools change?). Holding out for airtight scientific proof might be a very, very long wait.

3) You acknowledge this yourself but it’s important: There are a number of reasons, aside from recidivism rate, that this program is likely to be better. The report indicates it’s less expensive than prison, and victims report preferring it. There are also any number of other positive “externalities.” It may contribute to a less vindictive atmosphere in society overall and almost certainly reduces some of the human suffering associated with prison terms for the victims (and that suffering is a cost of criminal justice). Of course these latter reasons involve emotions and attitudes, and that makes them hard to quantify (see point 2).

4) Given the fact that people like this program, and that it is, I would argue, more compassionate, and that, at the very least, it can’t be proven that it’s making things worse: isn’t it a step forward?

Looking forward to your thoughts!

In reply to David McCourt,the article itself says it works and they are looking to expand it to England and Wales.Why would they do this if it was a failure?It’s only logical it’s a success.Jail should be used to protect the public from further crime.If we don’t address the reasons behind crime we are failing both society and the perpetrators of crime.When a person is born,they can become anything and all the input and experiences that person goes through contributes to his/her makeup.We as a society must take responsibility for what’s in it and punishment without addressing the reasons behind it won’t fix the problem.This program is a step forward in that direction and the article said itself even the victims actually like it better.

Andrew,I appreciate your comments, which are well taken, especially point 2, and most of pt 3. Point 1 is the rub. As you note, they don’t actually compare the population entering the conference program with those not entering, so we cannot tell if those diverted to the program are those who are already less likely to offend; nor can we make an inference about the program’s success based on overall recidivist rates. I would note that one of the other posters on this thread refers to a conferencing program which excludes from participation  offenders: who have serious emotional problems, who do drugs, or who are gang members. I’m not saying that those exclusions aren’t reasonable; I am saying that once you exclude those groups, you are bound to have selected a group with lower recidivism rates, before they’ve even entered the program. For all we know, some of these conferencing programs may actually increase recidivism rates among the cherry-picked population eligible, or they may do so as they are expanded to include more and more offenders.My basic point is simply that the gaps in basic information about this program mean that your statement — “the results are remarkable” — lacks any firm basis in fact. We just don’t know, because they haven’t told us — which makes me suspicious — and it is a little disturbing to see people here reacting with such uncritical enthusiasm, when all they are doing is affirming their own preconceived ideas, let’s not bother with getting any facts.  Robin65 takes it on faith that it is working, just because they say so, and despite the fact that they admit their “study” makes no attempt to determine whether it is working. Why would they say so it if weren’t the case, Robin asks (I would hope most people, and certainly people working in criminology, understand human nature better than to have to ask that question). Here is a basic answer: programs often take on a life of their own. Many people have an investment — emotional, intellectual, professional – in the program’s perceived success, continuation and expansion. There is an international institute devoted to these “restorative justice” programs; there are conferences, speeches and papers. Civil servants, NGO staffers, academics, judges and politicians have staked their reputations, and perhaps careers, on success. If a company I own shares in tells me it is doing just great with its new sales campaign, but won’t provide me with sales and profit figures, or year over year numbers so I can judge for myself, then I would sell that stock. 

Well David, I think we’ve reached an understanding, if not total agreement.

I would agree with you that having a direct comparison between overall recidivism pre-YC and post-YC would give us a better picture of whether it works. But I don’t think that means we have to remain agnostic about the likely overall effect on recidivism. If you look at the distribution of offenses of kids entering the program, it runs the gamut. But the difference in reoffending between YC participants and custodial punishments is big: 38% vs. 71%. Given that stark difference, the fact that offenders with all types of crimes were referred to the YC program, and the fact that 38% is low by global standars, I’m comfortable calling myself impressed.

That said, I’m not saying that’s an airtight case. Kids in the YC program had to agree to participate. That may introduce a certain “cherry-picking” effect. But at the end of the day, to get a true recidivism rate, you’d need to follow every participant through to their dying day to see if they ever reoffend, right? And we’re not going to wait for that. We shouldn’t hold out for incontrovertably conclusive data before moving on some apparent improvements.

Perhaps I should have said “encouraging” instead of “remarkable”
(though, literally speaking, you and I have both spent some time remarking about them so far, so they are that).

At the end of the day, though, this conversation itself has been a net good and improved the orignal post, so thanks for that and cheers!

p.s. If you want to get line breaks in your comment, I’ve found it helps to hit “delete” before you start typing.

This is a fabulous article regarding restorative justice. Hopefully, other communities will take notice. I remember many years ago (20), when I was studying Pre-Law, my professor told me about the gun problem in Great Brittain; there wasn’t one. He told the story with glee in his eyes to my surprised classroom that no one had any guns there. I thought, wow! a world without guns, now that’s something. I think things have certainly changed there, but for a short time, they didn’t have the kind of gun problem that we have here in the US. Maybe they still don’t; anyway, I applaud them for that. I applaud Ireland for taking this approach as well. There are many ways to punish a person, yet, putting a person in jail and never giving them a chance to apologize to the victim or to have a dialogue regarding the crime and why it happened, really creates a disconnect between the punishment and the crime. I think it would help the victim to get to talk to the perpetrator about what happened and also to talk to them about the pain they experienced. This is such a humanistic approach, so much more so than putting someone in jail. Great article, and it is nice to know that programs like this one are catching on in other places as well.

They are trying this type of thing with men who are caught picking up a prostitute. If they have no prior record they are spared jail time, or a fine, whatever, and go to an all day seminar where they have former prostitutes speak to the men. To make them seem more human, I guess.