CAPITULO II. DIAGNÒSTICO
2.2. PARTICIPACIÓN EN EVENTOS UNIVERSITARIOS
Though JRC Phase 2 conferences concentrated largely upon the future for offenders, there was some discussion of the future for victims. Direct reparation did not figure strongly, though there was at least some minor discussion about it in just under half the conferences74. Despite
its prevalence in statutory restorative justice options for young offenders, neither did indirect reparation (work for the local community or disadvantaged groups: see Holdaway et al. 2001). Discussion of any form of work for the victim or community only occurrred in 18 per cent of conferences and no indirect reparation to the community was agreed. This may have been because representatives of the wider community were not present to agree feasibility (see above) or simply because 'work' to be done by the offender was difficult to formulate for adult offenders in prison or likely to be subject to community penalties.
This lack of discussion of reparation and, as we shall see, lack of mention of direct reparation in outcome agreements, was not because the discussion became dominated by offenders or offender supporters. Offenders contributed to the discussion of the conference outcome in 90 per cent of JRC Phase 2 conferences (in 39 per cent quite a lot or a lot), with only the young offenders in the Northumbria youth final warning conferences being less likely to contribute (79 per cent did so). Offender supporters were also active in the discussion, with 67 per cent of cases where they were present seeing offender supporters contributing and many prompting offenders, especially young offenders. Victims, however, also strongly contributed (in 92 per cent of the cases where they were present). There was major consensus on the eventual outcome agreement, with 62 per cent of observed JRC Phase 2 conferences being rated as having a lot of consensus on the outcome agreement, 32 per cent quite a lot of agreement and just 6 per cent having none, a little or some agreement75.
73 Now the National Offender Management Service (NOMS).
74 Though only quite a lot or a lot of discussion of direct reparation in 7 per cent of JRC phase 2 conferences. Quite a lot or a lot of discussion about indirect reparation occurred in only 3 per cent of such conferences, but was far more prevalent in adult caution conferences (67 per cent).
75 Similar percentages occurred for adult caution conferences and indeed the earlier Phase 1 conferences, where 62 per cent of the 34 conferences we observed showed a lot of agreement, 21 per cent quite a lot and 15 per cent some or a little agreement.
It seemed to be that victims did not, generally, want direct or indirect reparation from offenders. Certainly, that was their view before conferences (see Chapter 2). Offenders, on the other hand, consistent with their expectations (see Chapter 2), did occasionally offer direct reparation. Sometimes this was accepted, but often rejected. Rejection might be because the offer was seen as 'petty' compared to what the victim had lost or the effects suffered (as in a London burglary case), but more often there was acknowledgement of the offender for making the offer, but it was not what the victim wanted. Sometimes it was agreed money should be paid to a charity. Suggestions for methods of payment of compensation, when agreed, ranged from a cheque on the spot, through payment by the offender in instalments, the offender repaying a relative, to being taken from the offender's wages or pocket money. Decisions were sometimes made via a protracted discussion, sometimes in a calm and business-like way. Offenders also offered direct reparation in the form of work to the victim in a few cases, usually in circumstances specific to the offence. So, for example, cleaning in a school, picking up litter and washing a car were suggested. Responsibility for checking that the agreement was delivered was undertaken by a variety of people, including the facilitator, offender supporters, victim supporters and professionals.
The key aspects for victims seemed to be more symbolic forms of reparation, in the form of apologies and remorse (discussed above) or seeing the offender change and doing something about his or her problems. One JRC London burglary victim said: 'If you’re asking me what I’d like, I’d like your life to change. If you’re willing to repay for the damage, that would be welcomed but I wouldn’t want it to be paid at the expense of your family'.
By the conference, several victims said that their needs had already been met and that they had 'moved on'. Attending the conference was an affirmation of this. But often, the victim still wanted this: to have 'peace of mind', reassurance or to have their confidence restored. It might be through having questions answered or even through offenders offering crime prevention advice: 'If I can give you advice, don’t be afraid ... people in a drug circle can spot a victim a mile away. They’ll swoop in and get you. You have to stand your ground' (JRC London street crime).
Victims sometimes said they would like further information about the offender's future progress. Usually it was agreed that the information would be conveyed by letters, though on a couple of occasions, the victim offered to give a phone number for this:
The victim suggested that the offender write to her in a year’s time, 'to tell her they were not in trouble… and had been successful at something'. The victim was ‘not there to gloat or make things difficult for them, she still wanted to help them. If they wrote to her in 12 months she would write back and say she forgave them'. (Northumbria youth final warning case)
Victim to offender: 'I don’t want you to feel beholden but I’d like to know how you are getting on.' (REMEDI).
In a few instances, however, we observed that the victim felt nothing further should happen after the conference. In one JRC London street crime case, when the facilitator asked the victim what he wanted to happen as a result of the conference, the victim startled everyone by saying 'Nothing'.
It was quite common for participants to comment that they were glad they had attended their conference. Victims said that they felt better having seen the offender face-to-face at the conference, as their fear had diminished:
I just wanted [my partner] to see you so she knew you weren’t a monster with knives for fingers. I’ve a feeling she’ll be sleeping better having seen an ordinary bloke with a problem. (victim in JRC London burglary case)
I didn’t sleep last night. I was sick twice because I was scared of seeing you […] I’ve seen you now and I can move on. (victim in JRC London street crime case)
64
Others expressed relief for different reasons. For example, at the end of another JRC London burglary conference, a victim said she hadn’t expected to feel so emotional but that it had been good to tell the offender about the impact of the offence: 'It’s good to be able to express these things'. In one Thames Valley prison conference, the victim said she felt '200 per cent stronger since coming here' and, in another, the victim commented, 'I can honestly say I’ve lost some of my anger here today - well, a lot of it'. One victim said he wished his partner had attended the conference, because 'this is a way to bury it. You’re being punished. I can move on now' (London burglary). In a small number of cases we observed a sense of ‘elation’ among participants at the end of a JRC conference. For example, after one Thames Valley prison conference the victim commented, 'it’s like a happy ending', and another participant (a police officer involved in the case) added, 'we should have a group hug'. Everyone laughed. Offenders, too, commented that having taken part in a conference helped them feel more able to 'get on with life'. Many expressed gratitude to victims, other participants and facilitators for giving them the opportunity: 'I needed this - I needed to understand your side' (JRC London burglary); 'This made me feel better. I don’t feel proud of myself. I feel better in my heart and I feel sorry for what happened' (JRC Thames Valley prison).
However, not all victims or offenders experienced closure. In a few cases, victims said they felt worse having attended a conference, as Strang (2002) has also found. In one JRC London burglary case, the premature departure of the offender and his supporter after a misunderstanding left the victim feeling frightened about reprisals, and he said he regretted attending: 'I have to say now that I feel I’ve made a big mistake'. In a JRC London street crime conference, the victim commented that he felt he had wasted two hours of his life by coming to the conference, and it had made him feel worse. A number of offenders attending victim absent conferences expressed disappointment about victims not being present, and frustration about being unable to say what they wanted to face-to-face.
Generally, though, many conferences and mediations ended with participants shaking hands and, in some cases, hugging each other. Often these gestures were accompanied by apologies and/or wishing each other well for the future. This would occur over refreshments, which were provided and used in 88 per cent of observed conferences.