Juicio público

Chapter Four outlines three sub-cultures amongst police officers: top command, middle management and frontline workers, each orientated towards a different aspect of policy (Farkas and Manning, 1997). Broadly speaking, the higher the rank of officer, the more nuanced their understanding of restorative justice tends to be. Despite some frontline officers receiving numerous training packages and various in-house training (and some being clearly passionate about restorative justice) their discussions during focus groups were focused more on practical issues. Higher ranking officers, despite receiving little or no training in restorative justice, often showed more nuanced understanding. The research findings

reflected the orientations put forward by Farkas and Manning‟s model, i.e. frontline workers were orientated towards concrete knowledge: the practice of carrying out restorative justice and what is expected of them. Whilst many officers found it difficult to fully embrace restorative justice, for frontline staff this was less about the philosophy and more about the practical realities of doing it. For them the main barrier to doing restorative justice was the lack of understanding specifically in relation to the practicalities of conducting restorative conferences and the recording of restorative justice outcomes on force systems which was described by some frontline officers as being a “completely impractical process” [FG3P6]. Frontline workers therefore are less interested in the philosophical or theoretical elements of restorative justice, in terms of understanding they want to be given enough practical

information to allow them to „do‟ it. In terms of officers‟ understandings, there was some knowledge about the benefits of restorative justice both for the victim and the offender. Amongst frontline officers there was some understanding that restorative justice was about “putting something right” [FG3P1] and for the person who has offended to be held

accountable for their actions. However, for many frontline workers the importance of

reparation and the offender repairing the harm that they have caused did not come through in the dialogue. Restorative justice was seen as a quick, simple process whereby the offender said sorry to the victim. There is knowledge around the offender being held to account for their actions but the aim seems to be more in terms of aiding the offender; it is expressed as a means of reducing reoffending, not repairing the harm caused to the victim. This is a typical quote from a frontline officer where they clearly believe this is what restorative justice is, describing it as “arranging for two people to come here, or wherever, and sit down. To then start talking about and mediating between about how you‟re going to prevent further offending” [FG2P2]. The officer describes flexibility in where the conference will take place, the descriptor „people‟ is used rather than an offender label, and they refer to talking or mediation yet the underlying aim or principle outcome of the process appears to be preventing further reoffending.

144 Middle managers provide the link between top command and frontline workers; it is argued that understanding by this group is perhaps key as it is they who interpret policies and directives (Farkas and Manning, 1997). This particular sub-culture is most orientated towards the implementation process; how to translate their understandings of the philosophy of restorative justice into something they believe frontline officers will understand, what to implement, and what practices to prioritise when faced with competing and often conflicting demands. Middle managers showed more understanding and were very much orientated towards the victim being „given a voice‟, offenders being held accountable for their actions, and repairing the harm: “[restorative justice is] useful for closure for victims of crime I think, as well as having the opportunity for the harmer to think about their offending” [IV4]. For middle management we see the interpretation of theory: the tagline used in the re-launch branding of restorative justice was frequently given; restorative justice is about “giving victims a voice”. There was also understanding that the offender should be involved in the agreement “it‟s not a chain gang, erm it‟s not a method with which to enforce punishments on people” [IV3]. Middle managers were aware of this need for frontline officers to

understand and to be given the practical knowledge regarding how to do it: „for a cop to do it on the street it‟s got to be non-bureaucratic, it‟s got to be not too time consuming, but it‟s got to add quality to their day, and it‟s got to be simple‟ [IV9].

145 Top command understood restorative justice processes to be about the wider issues of repairing harm: “restorative justice isn't where … punishments are imposed on offenders and harmers, rather than harmers saying „no, this is what I need to do to put it right‟” [IV1]. Top command was most likely to understand the philosophy of, and theoretical debates

surrounding, restorative justice. As might be expected, this segment had the deepest and most nuanced understanding. Within this focus group dialogue focused on broader theoretical concepts and was centred on putting right the harm. There was also a greater awareness not only as to what restorative justice is but to what it is not: „restorative justice isn't where punishments are imposed on offenders and harmers, rather than harmers saying „no, this is what I need to do to put it right‟‟ [IV1]. The vision and role of leadership is crucial for restorative policing (Bazemore and Griffiths, 2003). McLeod argues, “leadership in the agency must clearly understand what restorative justice is, what commitment to change is and what the change process requires” (2003:370-1). However, as discussed one of the key elements to a police force‟s successful policy implementation is for there to be a „common understanding‟ throughout the ranks (Paterson and Clamp 2012:601). Figure 10 highlights how subtle differences in understanding between ranks impacts on frontline officers‟ understandings of restorative justice.

Generally, whilst middle managers expressed an understanding of the needs of frontline officers in relation to implementing policy, the level of detail needed was not always provided. There is a clear gap between the level of information officers were previously accustomed to under their old ways of working in a bureaucratic force and restorative justice processes which rely on police officer discretion and therefore lack the level of detailed information and prescribed processes. Whilst restorative justice is promoted as a return to police discretion both in force training sessions and across literature (see Clamp and

Paterson, 2013) it is clear that many officers struggled with the lack of practical information; there is a central conflict between the philosophy, the proposed change to enable officers to use discretion, and the bureaucratic regime officers were used to working in (McLeod, 2003:372). This created a barrier to implementation that will be discussed further in Chapter Eight.

Despite clear understandings from top command police understandings of restorative justice vary through the police force ranks. Whilst the differences are quite subtle from one rank to the next there is a „Chinese whisper‟ effect and so the understandings of frontline officers are radically different to those of top command. Having established that different police cultures are orientated towards different aspects of restorative justice policy, Figure 10 highlights the lack of „common understanding‟ between ranks and subcultures. Whilst each subcultural group has subtle differences in understanding one can see how understandings of

146 restorative justice mutate and key elements in relation to the philosophy or the key themes of restorative justice are lost as it becomes a process of getting a victim and offender together so that an apology can occur. This chapter will now discuss some of these gaps in

understanding in more detail.