Wagga Wagga
In Australia Restorative Cautioning based on Braithwaite‟s theory of crime shame and reintegration (1989) was adopted first by the police force in Wagga Wagga before spreading across the country. Braithwaite argues that sanctions imposed by persons relevant to the offender (i.e. friends or relatives) have more effect on that person‟s future criminal
behaviour than sanctions imposed by the state (1989: 69). Shaming is the key to controlling all kinds of crime, of which Braithwaite distinguishes between two kinds. The first is stigmatising shame; this disintegrates the moral bonds between the offender and the community and increases crime. He argues it is this kind of shame that is most used by the criminal justice system. The second type of shame is reintegrative shame; this strengthens the bond between the offender and the community by acknowledging the shame of wrongdoing but then offering ways in which the offender can make right the wrong (by expressing remorse, apologising to their victim and repairing the harm caused by their crime). The offender is then reintegrated into society as a law abiding citizen and crime is decreased. It is this reintegrative shaming that forms part of an alternative, restorative model of justice.
Influenced by Braithwaite‟s theories as well as the family group conferencing work that was happening in nearby New Zealand the early 90s saw the police in a small Australian town called Wagga Wagga experiment with police-led, scripted, restorative conferencing.
Adopting it as part of an „effective cautioning scheme‟ the Wagga Wagga model held family group conferencing style forums in which reintegrative shaming is used on the offender (Moore & O‟Connell, 1994). What was unique about Wagga Wagga was the use of police officers as facilitators; prior to this other forms of restorative justice, such as victim offender mediation and family group conferences used „neutral‟ facilitators, not officials or authority figures. The model itself encouraged police officers to think about how they responded to
69 youth crime, giving consideration to the needs of victim. In addition to the victim the
scheme also gives consideration to the offender in that that they are given a „clear strong message about the acceptability of their behaviour‟, thereby reducing the likelihood of reoffending and providing the “most just, most effective means of preventing crime” (Moore & McDonald, 1995:146-7). The police-led caution is described as offering a „constructive‟ way for victims and their family and friends to deal with any anger or resentment they might be feeling (Moore & McDonald, 1995).
However, the use of police as facilitators was met with criticism and concern, and Wagga Wagga drew significant protest from community and legal organisations and academic researchers (Hoyle, 2007). Blagg (1997) argued that the shaming model used in Australia has been targeted at Aboriginal people and that this method may intensify rather than reduce police control over what is already a victimised population. There were also worries that reintegrative shaming would be used against the most vulnerable and that introduction of restorative justice in Wagga Wagga reinforced the role of the state and did little to ensure great controls over discretionary decision making: indeed it was argued that it was likely to result in more punitive outcomes for indigenous youth (Cunneen, 1997).
Umbreit and Zehr (1996) outline the following six key arguments in relation to the use of police officers as facilitators. First, that this form of conferencing may not allow sufficient time for preparation, therefore limiting the humanising elements of the process and the ability for those attending to feel safe and be able to engage in genuine dialogue. Second, that police facilitators may be insensitive to victim‟s needs and coerce them into attendance. Third, that young people, particularly young offenders may be intimidated by adults,
especially uniformed police officers, and are therefore unable to comfortably talk about their thoughts and feelings. Fourth, that authoritarian behaviour is ingrained in police behaviour and they are therefore potentially incapable of delivering the neutral facilitation that reintegrative shaming required. Fifth, the use of a script offers little deviation and therefore is too rigid and lacking in cultural sensitivity. And finally the sixth objection is that police- based conferencing may lead to net-widening. McCold and Wachtel use police data from the Bethlehem project to address some of the concerns raised and argues that police officers can be competent facilitators in restorative processes as will be discussed in the following section. (McCold and Wachtel, 1998).
Bethlehem
In 1995 the police force in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania implemented a diversionary restorative justice scheme for first time juvenile offenders based on the family group conferencing and „Wagga Wagga‟ model. Whilst VOM was already used across the United States, Bethlehem
70 was the first programme that involved police officers as conference facilitators. Eighteen police officers received an initial three-day training course, the scheme was marketed locally to gain community support and an experimental design to assess the effectiveness of the scheme was put in place (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). The scheme‟s mission was to provide an: “alternative justice program for juvenile offenders and their victims. By providing a forum for victims to express feeling and take part in the repair of harm, the offenders must own and evaluate their behaviour and how it affects other people.” (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). The evaluation of the project examined, amongst other things, whether American police officers were capable of facilitating conferences to a standard that is consistent with restorative justice principles and if the victim, offender and community were willing to accept police-based restorative conferencing. It also examined how policed-based restorative conferences compared both to existing justice processes and also to other restorative justice practices. A further research question explored if the introduction of restorative conferencing produced a culture shift across the police force from a punitive approach towards a problem- solving restorative approach, as experienced in Wagga Wagga.
The research found that police officers were capable of facilitating a scripted restorative conference; however, there was a tendency for officers to lecture the offender, particularly if the facilitator felt like the offender was not remorseful about the incident. There were concerns that this lecturing could be perceived as stigmatizing (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). Researchers also found occasions where the police officer facilitating the conference
influenced the agreement, for example using phrases such as “how much community service would you like done?” (McCold and Wachtel, 1998: 104). Whilst the majority of young offenders interviewed after the event felt that all aspects of the process were voluntary a small number felt that they did not have the right to leave the conference at any time, on reflection McCold and Wachtel suggest this was perhaps more due to coercion by family members than from the facilitators (1998:103). In response to some of the concerns raised extra training was given to the police officers in order to reinforce key issues, particularly around the reintegrative intention of the conference. Following this intervention compliance with the protocol increased from 80% to 89% (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). Overall findings suggest that restorative principles were „sufficiently‟ if not „exemplary‟ applied (McCold and Wachtel). Significantly 96% of participants who experienced a police-led restorative conference were satisfied and felt that the process was fair (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). In contrast to the findings from the Wagga Wagga project, there was no significant change in police officer attitude, organisational culture or role perception (McCold and Wachtel, 1998). Police officers who were involved in facilitating conferences, and were therefore already predisposed to community policing, did measure higher perception of community
71 cohesion and lower for a crime control approach in their attitude questionnaires. McCold and Wachtel conclude that whilst the implementation of police-led restorative conferencing did not transform police attitudes or organisational culture it did “move those with the most exposure to conferencing toward a more community-orientated, problem-solving stance” (McCold and Wachtel, 1998:6). In relation to organisational transformation it is important to recognise that Bethlehem had not adopted a whole force approach to restorative justice and only small numbers of the workforce (less than ten per cent) were trained, therefore it is perhaps hardly surprising that police attitudes and culture were not affected by the implementation.
In terms of how police-led restorative conferencing compares both to the pre-existing justice system and to other restorative justice practices the research found that rates of satisfaction were at least as high as court process and other restorative processes and that participation rates and compliance rates were also comparable. Due to self-selection bias recidivism rates could not be appropriated to the restorative encounter. However, as a diversionary scheme it did divert those who were the least likely to reoffend and avoided net-widening (McCold and Wachtel, 2008:113). There were also additional benefits in relation to the restorative nature of the scheme, as discussed in Chapter Two. Whilst schemes may not be „ideal‟ it is still possible to derive value from the application of restorative values (Doolin, 2007). Importantly McCold and Wachtel found that compared to VOM, police-led restorative conferencing “produced higher satisfaction, perceptions of fairness and participation rates for less-cost” (1998: 113).
The Wagga Wagga police experiment showed that implementing police-led restorative approaches has the potential to bring about cultural change across a police force. Despite strong opposition in Australia to the idea of police-led facilitation the „Wagga‟ model has been adapted for use by police forces elsewhere. Its use in Bethlehem shows that police-led restorative approaches are widely accepted and are an ideal diversionary measure.
Bethlehem also showed the use of police-led restorative justice offered improved
participation, financial benefits, and importantly high satisfaction rates with conferencing perceived to be fairer than VOM processes. Building on the success of these projects
scripted police-led restorative conferencing, especially the „Wagga‟ model, “has proliferated internationally with astonishing speed” (Johnstone, 2011:4). The following sections will explore the use of restorative processes by police forces in England and Wales exploring initial developments before focusing on its use by Thames Valley.
72