Textos:

Having talked about the past and the present, participants needed to gather their thoughts before thinking about the future - we observed there was often a pause at this point. Facilitators or mediators often had to prompt people to discuss this. We need to consider that all these cases were either directly at that time concerned in criminal justice (such as pre- sentence, or as part of final warnings) or were in the shadow of criminal justice, because they involved criminal offences which were or had been dealt with by criminal justice professionals. Participation by lay people in deciding what should happen is not generally encouraged in criminal justice decision making in England and Wales71_{. So this part of the conference or}

mediation may be particularly unusual for participants.

So did facilitators actually have to step in and lead or direct this part of conferences or mediations? From our ratings, the answer is generally 'no'. After the pause, participants rallied and started to talk about the future. Ratings of whether facilitators had stepped back and allowed participants to arrive at an outcome showed that in only 3 per cent of JRC Phase 2 conferences had the facilitator directed this phase and in 15 per cent the facilitator had only stepped back a little. On the other hand, facilitators clearly played some part: in 26 per cent they had stepped back to some extent and in 36 per cent they had stepped back quite a lot - but not totally. Although CONNECT and REMEDI direct mediations did not generally have outcome agreements (see below), they did have a future-oriented element at the end of the meeting. Observers here thought mediators stepped back a lot or quite a lot.

Discussion about the future tended to revolve around the offender and what the offender should do, rather than around the victim's future needs. One might conclude from this that conferences and mediations are offender-centred and essentially just another rehabilitative forum. Some restorative justice theorists have indeed explicitly proposed this rehabilitative focus (for example, Braithwaite 1999; Johnstone 2002) and it is common in restorative justice schemes dealing with young offenders (Dignan 2000; Hoyle et al. 2002). However, it is clear from the conferences and mediations that we observed that it was victims and their supporters, as well as offenders and their supporters, who chose to focus on the offender's future and how potential re-offending might be reduced. Whilst a few victims claimed not to be concerned about the offender's future, the vast majority expressed concern, good wishes and/or made constructive suggestions. This is entirely in accord with our interview findings on victims' reasons for participating in restorative justice (see Chapter 2). In conferences, typical victims' comments were:

71 Except in providing information which can be used by criminal justice decision makers (such as the victim personal statement, or mitigation) or in the specific instance of the referral order, where victims are encouraged to attend panel meetings (though they do not decide upon the elements of the order).

I’d like to have peace of mind for myself and see someone who doesn’t do it again (London burglary RCT)

I want him off drugs so he doesn’t do it again. What is available? (London burglary RCT)

Common aspirations among offenders were to stop using drugs (very commonly, especially in London); to control or stop drinking (less common); to gain employment or qualifications; and ‘settling down’ generally. Many offenders simply stated that they wanted to lead a ‘normal’ life: 'I just wanna change and come out of prison and stay drug free and get a job' (London burglary RCT). For some, leaving their home area and/or current associates was a priority. A few mentioned wanting to ‘do something’ for the community, such as voluntary work or mentoring. Others said they aimed to be a better partner or parent: 'My sons are gonna keep me on track. I’d rather do it for them. I don’t want to let them down' (London street crime RCT). These are also, interestingly, common factors here with the way offenders talk about desistance (Maruna 2001; Laub and Sampson 2003).

Four fifths of JRC conferences discussed offenders' problems, with the main problems mentioned being, from our observations, addiction to drugs (45 per cent) or alcohol (36 per cent), family problems (22 per cent), offending friends (22 per cent) and other health or mental health problems. Some 83 per cent of Phase 2 JRC conferences specifically discussed how to stop the offender from committing similar types of offence again. In this context, discussion of offenders' previous offending patterns could also occur, with 60 per cent of conferences discussing this, at least to some extent. Problems were statistically significantly more likely to be discussed in the RCTs which concerned more serious offences (London burglary and street crime, Thames Valley prison RCTs)72 _{- not surprisingly, given potentially imminent}

criminal justice decisions in some cases. There was not as much discussion of offenders' problems or of rehabilitation in the youth final warning conferences as we might have expected, with only 43 per cent discussing these at all, but it may be that participants thought the conference by itself may have been sufficient to prevent re-offending or participants may not have known about other difficulties facing the young offenders, or have thought they would grow out of them. CONNECT mediations discussed how to stop re-offending a lot, which ties in with mediators' emphases on what offenders might do during preparation and mediators' promise to write reports on these cases to the courts. REMEDI mediations, however, were much less likely to focus on offenders' problems and stopping re-offending, in tune with REMEDI's view that generally it was not involved in the criminal justice process (see Chapter 3).

Getting help for drug problems was the most commonly discussed specific problem in JRC conferences. A considerable number of offenders were on drug-free prison wings with voluntary urine testing. Many offenders - particularly but not solely in custody or pre-sentence cases - expressed a desire to undertake residential rehabilitation, though few had actually applied for and/or secured funding. Some offenders mentioned agencies or sources of support with which they were already in touch, such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, counsellors and in a small number of cases psychologists. Prison-based CARAT (counselling, assessment, referral, advice and through-care) teams were often referred to, with offenders claiming to be on waiting lists to see CARAT workers or in some cases having already been assessed. A number also mentioned specific prison-based programmes or forthcoming or completed Drugs Treatment and Testing Order assessments; others said they wanted to sign up for programmes but could not until sentenced.

A few prisoners referred to general offending behaviour programmes (e.g. Enhanced Thinking Skills) or programmes for specific problems (e.g. anger management), which they were hoping or waiting to commence. Some criticisms of rehabilitative opportunities in prison at that time were voiced: that resources were scarce; the availability of drugs in prison and consequent temptation; lack of educational provision; lack of aftercare/resettlement help. As one offender supporter put it, 'The acid test will be when he leaves [prison], but I can’t see the support being there' (Thames Valley prison RCT). It was not unusual for victims/supporters to

62

voice shock and/or concern at the lack of resources available to help offenders in and/or on release from prison.

In respect of offenders in the community, various resources were mentioned. At some of the Northumbria conferences, representatives of community-based services (such as drug and alcohol support) were invited to conferences to try to link offenders with resources. Comments about offender’s experiences on probation were mixed and depended upon experiences with particular offices or probation officers.

Some facilitators were not familiar with all the ‘rehabilitative’ options, which was not surprising given their varied professional backgrounds, the variety of contexts (not least prisons) in which conferences took place and the different stages of criminal justice represented. Often it was offenders themselves who were most knowledgeable about available programmes/resources, particularly in prisons. One London facilitator made a point of bringing a letter for the prison governor requesting help for offenders with drug issues. Difficulty with securing enough places in programmes to meet problems identified during restorative justice has been a feature of a number of schemes in different countries (Maxwell and Morris 1993) and it is not surprising to find it in our evaluation, particularly given the non-statutory nature of the schemes and the changing programmes and means of provision through the prison and probation services73 _in

England and Wales at the time we were observing conferences (Rex et al. 2003). An important practice point is that restorative justice workers need to be kept up to date by NOMS and other agencies of the programmes and opportunities available in local areas and different facilities.