Seminari Justícia Restaurativa a Europa. Evolució i perspectives actuals. Frieder Dünkel Centre d'Estudis Jurídics i Formació Especialitzada, 10 d'octubre de 2014

1. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Restorative Justice in Penal Matters in Europe
Frieder DünkelBarcelona, 10 October 2014Sponsored by the European Commission‘s Specific Programme„Criminal Justice 2007-2013“ and the University of GreifswaldJUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1525

2. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
History and aims of the project
•Start: 1 July 2011
•End: 31 December 2014
•Title: Restorative Justice in Penal Matters in Europe
•Aims:
•Stocktaking and comparison of restorative justice measures and processes/procedures in 36 countries and jurisdictions
•Legislative aspects
•Practice
•„Good practices“ and „bad experiences“
•Evaluation of RJ-procedures and measures
•Recommendations for further developing RJ in the context in different countries

3. Countries and jurisdictions covered by the study
•Austria
•Belgium
•Bosnia-Hercegovina
•Bulgaria
•Croatia
•Czech Republic
•Denmark
•England/Wales
•Estonia
•Finland
•France
•Germany
•Greece
•Hungary
•Ireland
•Italy
•Latvia
•Lithuania
•Macedonia
•Montenegro
•Netherlands
•Northern Ireland
•Norway
•Poland
•Portugal
•Romania
•Russia
•Scotland
•Serbia
•Slovakia
•Slovenia
•Spain
•Sweden
•Switzerland
•Ukraine
•Turkey

4. Contents of national reports
1.Origins, aims and theoretical background of Restorative JusticeVictim/Offender orientation, historical contextual variables, basic assumptions of penal law and criminology, aims of reforms, influence of international standards
2.Legislative basis for Restorative Justice at different stages of the criminal procedure in juvenile and adult criminal lawPre-court level (diversion), court-level, restorative elements while serving prison sentences in juvenile and adult criminal settings
3.Organisational structures, restorative procedures and delivery VOM, conferencing, reparation, compensation orders, community service, RJ in prisons
4.Research, evaluation and experiences with Restorative JusticeStatistical data, implementation research and evaluation (preventing re-offending)
5.Concluding remarks

5. Definitions
•What does Restorative Justice mean?
•RJ is “any process in which the victim and the offender, and, where appropriate, any other individuals or community members affected by a crime, participate together actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator.” Art. 2 ECOSOC Res. 2002/12

6. Definitions
•“Restorative outcomes are agreements reached as a result of a restorative process. [They] include responses and programmes such as reparation, restitution and community service, aimed at meeting the individual and collective needs and responsibilities of the parties and achieving the reintegration of the victim and the offender.” Art. 3 ECOSOC Res. 2002/12

7. Outcome oriented definition
•RJ aims “to resolve conflict and to repair harm. It encourages those who have caused harm to acknowledge the impact of what they have done and gives them an opportunity to make reparation. It offers those who have suffered harm the opportunity to have their harm or loss acknowledged and amends made.” Liebmann 2008, p. 301.
•Other definitions instead emphasize the process of conflict resolution/mediation.

8. What are the differences between the classic criminal justice approach and Restorative Justice?

9. Restorative Justice
•Restorative Justice can be seen as an alternative justice approach –extra-judicial conflict resolution
•RJ replaces the traditional justice system
•RJ elements can also be a part of the traditional justice system which partly transfer the classic penal philosophy
•Restorative elements within the criminal justice system are mediation, reparation, restitution as diversionary measures or non-custodial sentences.
•It can also be an additional part of custodial or non- custodial sentences and even of conditional release from prison.

10. Criminal law theory and mediation (Restorative Justice)
•Principles of juvenile justice:
•Principle of subsidiarity(priority to diversionand minimum intervention)
•Priority of the educational goal (aspects of special prevention, rehabilitation of mediation)
•Aspects of criminal theory (aims of criminal justice):
•Mediation corresponds to the theory of (positive) special prevention(resocialization) and positive general prevention (norm validation in the general society through the offender taking responsibility for his wrongdoing)
10

11. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITÄT GREIFSWALD – LEHRSTUHL FÜR KRIMINOLOGIE
Dr. ChristineMorgensternCriminological basics of mediation
•Crime theories:
•Theory of neutralization
•The threshold for committing criminal offences is lower if processes of vilification or even dehumanization take place The inhibition threshold can be increased by techniques that confront the offender with the pain he has caused to the victim.
11

12. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITÄT GREIFSWALD – LEHRSTUHL FÜR KRIMINOLOGIE
Dr. ChristineMorgensternCriminological basics of mediation(2)
•Of major importance has been John Braithwaite„s theory of Re-integrative Shaming(1989).
•The natural sense of shame is to be used to validate the wrongdoing for the offender (he should recognize his wrong-doing and take responsibility), on the other hand the society demonstrates its willingness to forgive and re-integrate the offender.,
•The parallel of Christian believe: Hate the sin, but love the sinner!
•Consequences for crime policy:
•Restorative justice, (family group) conferencing etc.
12

13. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
•Manifestationsofreparation,reconciliationandrestitutionhaveexistedincustomarylawandancientlawssincethemiddleages(BrehonLawinIreland;PeaceCouncilsinMacedonia;alsoRussia,Bulgaria)
•„Modernrejuvenation“ofRJhasfootingsintraditionalmodesofconflictresolutionofindigenouspopulations(MaorisinNewZealand,AborginesinAustraliaf.ex.)
•DevelopmentsofRJinthecontextofoffendingoneelementofriseinuseofalternativemodesofconflictresolutioninotherspheresofsociallife(community, neighbourhood,school,familyandbusinessdisputesforinstance)
Roots of Restorative Justice in Penal Matters in Europe

14. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel„Motors“ for Reform
Abolitionistthinking (Christie, Hulsman, Mathiesen)
Austria; Croatia; Finland; the Netherlands; Norway; Spain;
Victims Movement, strengthening role of victims
Croatia; Denmark; England/Wales; France; Germany; Greece; the Netherlands; Montenegro;Norway; Poland; Russia; Serbia; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland
Rehabilitation and reintegration over retribution and punishment; Diversion
Austria; Belgium; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Croatia; France; Germany; Hungary; Ireland; Italy; the Netherlands; Northern Ireland; Portugal; Romania; Russia; Scotland; Serbia; Slovenia; Spain; Switzerland; Ukraine.
Reforms in particular in the field of JuvenileJustice
Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina;England/Wales; Estonia; Germany; Ireland; Italy; Norway; Portugal; Romania; Russia; Spain; Switzerland;

15. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Compliance with international standards, EUharmonization
Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia;Hungary; Macedonia; Montenegro; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovenia; Serbia; Turkey; Ukraine;
Curbing custody rates
Estonia;Hungary; Ireland; Northern Ireland; Norway;Poland; Romania; Russia; Scotland; Slovakia; Slovenia; Turkey; Ukraine;
Lack of trust in the judi- ciaryfollowing a period of transition
Bulgaria; Czech Republic; Macedonia; Northern Ireland.
Inefficiency of an over- burdened criminal justice system; caseloads
Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Greece; Hungary; Ireland; Macedonia; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Turkey.

16. International standards
•Committee of Ministers Recommendation Rec (99) 19 concerning mediation in penal matters
•Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings
•Resolution 2002/12 of the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations on basic principles on the use of restorative justice programmes in criminal matters
•Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime;

17. Rec (99) 19 concerning mediation in penal matters
•Rule 1: Mediation in penal matters should only take place if the parties freely consent. …
•Rule 3: Mediation in penal matters should be a generally available service.
•Rule 4: Mediation should be available at all stages of the criminal justice process.
•Rule 5: Mediation services should be given sufficient autonomy within the criminal justice system.
•Other standards: Basic facts of the offence must be consented, obvious disparities (e. g. age, intellectual capacities) be observed, qualification/training, impartiality of mediators, agreements (obligations) must be “reasonable and proportionate”.

18. International standards (3)
•Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2003) 20 concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile offenders and the role of juvenile justice;
•Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2006) 2 concerning the European Prison Rules (EPR)
•Council of Europe Recommendation No. R. (2008) 11 on European Rules for Juvenile Offenders Subject to Sanctions or Measures (ERJOSSM)

19. Example ERJOSSM
•Nr. 15 ERJOSSM: Mediation or other restorative measures shall be encouraged at all stages of dealing with juveniles.
•Nr. 22.1: A wide range of community sanctions and measures, adjusted to the different stages of development of juveniles, shall be provided at all stages of the process.
•Nr. 22.2: Priority shall be given to sanctions and measures that may have an educational impact as well as constituting a restorative response to the offences committed by juveniles.

20. Example ERJOSSM (2)
•Juveniles deprived of their liberty:
•Nr. 79: Regime activities shall aim at education, personal and social development, vocational training, rehabilitation and preparation for release. These may include: …
•programmes of restorative justice and making reparation for the offence
•Nr. 94.1: Disciplinary procedures shall be mechanisms of last resort. Restorative conflict resolution and educational interaction with the aim of norm validation shall be given priority over formal disciplinary hearings and punishments

21. „Gate keepers“ of the criminal justice system
•Police(Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions with the power for diverting cases on that level)
•Prosecutors(if the principle of opportunity applies)
•Courts(either referring to court diversion powers or in the sentencing stage reparation orders, reparation, mediation as a condition of suspended sentences)
•Prison authorities (governors) (for mediation/reparation in prisons)

22. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelForms of Restorative Justice and Practice in Europe
Victim Offender Mediation / Reconciliation
Austria,Belgium,Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Croatia,CzechRepublic, Denmark,England/Wales,Estonia,Finland, France,Germany,Greece,Hungary,Ireland, Italy,Latvia,Lithuania(!),Macedonia, Montenegro,theNetherlandsNorway, Poland,Portugal,Romania,Russia, Scotland,Serbia,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain, Switzerland,Turkey(!),Ukraine.
Conferencing
Austria,Belgium,England/Wales,Germany, Hungary,Ireland,Latvia,NorthernIreland, theNetherlands,Poland,Scotland,Ukraine.

23. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Forms of Restorative Justice and Practice in Europe (2)
Reparation independent of restorativeprocesses (stand-alone court interventions, grounds for sentence mitigation, diversion)
Austria,Belgium,Bosnia-Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia,CzechRepublic,Denmark, England/Wales,Estonia,France,Germany, Greece,Hungary,Ireland,Italy,Lithuania, Macedonia,Montenegro,theNetherlands, Norway,Poland,Portugal,Romania,Russia, Serbia,Slovakia,Slovenia,Spain,Switzerland, Turkey,Ukraine.
Community Service
Austria,Bosnia-Herzegovina,Bulgaria,Croatia, CzechRepublic,Denmark,England/Wales, Estonia,France,Germany,Greece,Hungary, Ireland,Italy,Latvia,Lithuania,Macedonia, Montenegro,theNetherlands,Norway,Poland, Portugal,Romania,Russia,Serbia,Slovakia, Slovenia,Spain,Switzerland,Turkey,Ukraine.

24. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Implementation of Victim-Offender-Mediation / Reconciliation
•Council of Europe Recommendation Rec (1999) 19 concerning Mediation in Penal Matters:
VOM is “a process whereby the victim and the offender are enabled, if they freely consent, to participate actively in the resolution of matters arising from the crime through the help of an impartial third party (mediator)”
•Confidentiality, Voluntariness, Impartiality Turkey (prosecutors as “mediators”); Lithuania (Judges as “mediators”); Police-led mediation in the UK could be problematic

25. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelImplementation of Victim-Offender-Mediation / Reconciliation (2)
Significant variationin terms of:
•Nationwide provision in practice the exception (Germany, Austria, Finland, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Norway);
•In many countries, VOM is one of many means for fulfilling preconditions for diversion or mitigation;
•Bodies responsible for providing VOM-Services (NGOs, Probation Service, Social Services, Private entities; numerous thereof);
•Background/Professional status of Mediators (volunteers, professionals, probation or social workers).

26. Availability of providers of Victim Offender Mediation Services according to degree of geographic coverage
Country
Nationwide availability of VOM services
Regional availability of VOM services
Austria
X
Belgium
X
Bosnia-Herzegovina
X
Bulgaria
X
Croatia
X
Czech Republic
X
Denmark
X
England/Wales
X
Estonia
X
Finland
X
France
X
Germany
X
Greece
X
Hungary
X
Ireland
X
Italy
X
Latvia
X
Council of Europe Rec (99) 19
Rule 3: „Mediation in penal
matters should be a generally
available service”.

27. Availability of providers of Victim Offender Mediation Services according to degree of geographic coverage
Country
Nationwide availability of VOM services
Regional availability of VOM s.
Lithuania
X
Macedonia
X
Montenegro
X
The Netherlands
X
X
Northern Ireland
X
Norway
X
Poland
X
Portugal
X
Romania
X
Russia
X
Scotland
X
Serbia
X
Slovakia
X
Slovenia
X
Spain
X
Sweden
X
Switzerland
X
Turkey
X
Ukraine
X

28. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
VictimOrientation:
•Belgium,Netherlands,Denmark,Finland,Sweden, Romania
•Notnecessarilydirectlylinkedtothecriminalprocedure
•Rarelyguaranteedbenefitsofdiversionormitigationforoffender
•Resolvingconflictbetweenvictimandoffender,notoffenderandstate
•Lackof„incentives“increaseslikelihoodofgenuinelyvoluntaryparticipationandavoids„tacticalremorse“
•ReaffirmationofoffencesbeingconflictsbetweenoffenderandState?
Victim orientation vs. Offender orientation

29. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Offender-Orientation:
•Reachinganagreementthrougharestorativeprocessorsuccessfullydeliveringreparationhaseffectsoncriminalprocess(diversion,mitigation, court-sanction)
•Oftenlimitedtocertaintypesofoffences(offencesthatcanattractcustodialsentencesofupto3orsometimes5years);“complainant’scrimes”
•Proportionalityanddueprocessoverinterestsofvictiminmoreseriouscases
•Accessmostlydependentonjudicialdiscretion(„gatekeepers“)
Victim orientation vs. Offender orientation (2)

30. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Conferencing
•PredominantlylimitedtolocalizedprojectsinthefieldofJuvenileJustice(Austria,Germany,Hungary,Ukraine,Latvia,Poland,Scotland, Netherlands);
•NationwideprovisioninNorthernIreland,Belgium,(England/Wales), Ireland;
•Conferencinginvolvesawiderrangeofparticipants,likeforinstancefamilymembers,friendsandimportantlyrepresentativesfromthelocalcommunity
•Experiencewithconferencinghasbeenaccompaniedwithhighlevelsofparticipantsatisfactionandpromisingreoffendingrates,mostprominentlyinNorthernIreland;
•Conferencingisaviableoptionforcasesofmoreseriousoffending, andcouldbeameansforexpandingtheuseofRestorativeProcessesbeyondthecurrentconcentrationinthesphereofdivertinglessseriousoffendingfromtheformalcriminalprocedure.

31. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Reparation outside of Restorative Processes
•Approachesthatseektoeffectthedeliveryofreparationbyoffenderstovictimsofcrimes,ortotakesuchreparationbytheoffenderintoaccountinthecriminalprocedure
•Specificreparativecourtmeasures,like“ReparationOrders” intheUK,orcertain“educationalmeasures”or“specialobligations”thatrequirethemakingofapologiesor(non)financialreparationtovictims;
•Conditionofvoluntarinessofoffendertodeliverandvictimtoreceivereparation;
•Mostcommonmanifestationofreparation-orientedpracticesoutsideofrestorativeprocessesliesinspecialprovisionsofsubstantiveandproceduralcriminallawthatprovidesforcourtdiversionorsentencemitigationintheeventofeffectiverepentance.

32. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Community Service
Predominantlyusedas:
•Alternativetocustodialsentences/finesforcaseswithinaspecifiedseveritythreshold;
•Standalonesanctionintroducedwiththeintentionofprovidingcourtswithalternativestocustody;
•Educationalmeasureinthecontextofjuvenilejusticeasaconditionfordiversionfromprosecutionorcourtpunishment;

33. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
DoesCommunityServicefallwithinthescopeofRestorativeJustice?
•Rarelystatedaspossibleelementofrestorativeagreements(Portugal,Slovenia,NorthernIreland);
•Rarelystatedthatoffenderperformstheworkforthevictim(Switzerland,Poland);
•Wright1991:CentraltenetofCShadoriginallylaininrestorativethinking,“withpunitiveelementsofcommunityserviceorders[…][attending]itsimposition[…]onlyasby- productsoftheoffender’scommitmentoftimeandeffort”
•Workingforcharities,welfareinstitutions,personsinneedorpublicinstitutionscanberegardedas“reparation”tothecommunityatlarge;
•Voluntarinessquestionable

34. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Stages of Criminal Procedure at which RJ is available
Deliveryof reparation or successful restorative processas grounds for/conditionofpre-court diversion
Austria;Bosnia-Herzegovina;Belgium;Bulgaria; Croatia;CzechRepublic;England/Wales; Estonia;Finland;Germany;Greece;Hungary; Ireland;Italy;Latvia;Lithuania;Macedonia; Montenegro;Netherlands;NorthernIreland; Norway;Poland;Portugal;Romania;Russia; Scotland;Serbia;Slovenia;Slovakia;Spain; Sweden;Switzerland;Turkey;Ukraine
Deliveryof reparation or successful restorative processas ground for/condition of court diversion
Austria;Bosnia-Herzegovina;Bulgaria;Croatia; CzechRepublic;Estonia;Germany;Greece; Hungary;Italy;Latvia;Lithuania;Macedonia; (Netherlands);Montenegro;Poland;Scotland; Switzerland;Romania;Russia;Serbia;Slovenia; Spain;Switzerland;Turkey;Ukraine

35. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Court Sanctions with restorative character (including Community Service)
Austria,Bosnia-Herzegovina,Bulgaria, Croatia,CzechRepublic,Denmark, England/Wales,Estonia,France,Germany, Greece,Hungary,Ireland,Italy,Latvia, Lithuania,Macedonia,Montenegro,theNetherlands,Norway,Poland,Portugal, Romania,Russia,Serbia,Slovakia,Slovenia, Spain,Switzerland,Turkey,Ukraine.
RJ as a ground for sentence mitigation
Belgium;Croatia;Denmark;Estonia;Finland; Germany;Greece;Ireland;Latvia;Lithuania; Netherlands;Poland;Portugal;Romania; Russia;Spain;Sweden;Switzerland;Turkey; Ukraine

36. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
•Rule56.2oftheEuropeanPrisonRulesstatesthat“wheneverpossible,prisonauthoritiesshallusemechanismsofrestorationandmediationtoresolvedisputeswithandamongprisoners.”
•Predominantlyavailableonlyinindividualinstitutionsaspilotprojects(England/Wales,Bulgaria;France,Hungary;Italy; Latvia;Netherlands;Norway;Poland,Scotland;Switzerland; Ukraine);butnationwideinBelgium!
Use of RJ practices in prison settings
Belgium;Bulgaria;Denmark;England/Wales; Finland;France;Germany;Hungary;Italy; Latvia;Netherlands;Norway;Poland;Portugal; Scotland;Switzerland;Russia;Spain;Ukraine;

37. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITÄT GREIFSWALD – LEHRSTUHL FÜR KRIMINOLOGIE
Dr. ChristineMorgenstern
Restorative Justice in Prison settings
•Poland,Portugal,Croatia,Germany:LegislativeprovisionismadeforRJinprisons,howeverarelargelydefunctinpracticeasnosufficientservicesareprovided;
•Theactualtendenciesgobeyondthis:
•RestorativeJusticeapotentiallypromisingstrategyforearlyreleaseprogrammes,rehabilitationprogrammes,asconditionstobemetwhenreleasedonprobationandasmeansofresolvingconflictswithinprisons.
•TheideaofRestorativePrisons
•Prisonersaremakinggoodtothesociety,inparticularinthenearbycommunitysetting(communityserviceetc.)

38. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelThe Use of Restorative Justice in Practice
•Finland: 9.248 adult offenders and 4.311 juvenile offenders referred to VOM in 2011;
•Norway: about two thousand young offenders are referred to VOM each year. By contrast, only about 1/10ththat number of adults are referred;
•Austria: roughly 5-6% of all juveniles who come to the attention of the prosecution service are referred to VOM. There, the figures have in fact been declining in recent years, from over 1.500 in 2005 to just under 1.300 in 2009;
•The declining trend can also be seen in Slovenia, where in 2004 just over 1.900 VOMs were conducted with adult offenders and 344 with juvenile offenders –the respective absolute figures for 2011 were 1.532 and 88 respectively.

39. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelThe Use of Restorative Justice in Practice (2)
•Sloveniais an interesting anomaly in Europe in that VOM plays a greater role with adult offenders. The same applies to Hungaryas well, where in 2011 there were 3.874 VOMs with adult offenders, yet only 370 involving juvenile offenders;
•In England and Wales, 33% of all court sanctions are Referral Orders, however the restorative value of Referral Orders remains to be discussed, with a victim participation rate of only 12% and only 7% of agreed reparation actually being made to the direct victim. Only marginal role for adults;
•In Germany, 2% of all court interventions in 2010 were referrals to VOM (2.700 in absolute terms), and a further 3.2% were Reparation Measures; 1.000 VOMs at court level for adults in 2010; (but 41% of juvenile court dispositions in 2012 were community service orders!, mainly used as punishments, rarely as educational or restorative measures, 49% of 14-17 years-old juveniles and 33% of 18-20 years- old young adults were involved)

40. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelThe Use of Restorative Justice in Practice (3)
•In the remainder of the countries who were able to provide data, the annual case loads are low, and not representative for the whole country. But the picture remains that they are used only sparingly;
•Portugal: In 2011, 90 requests for VOM involving adult offenders, 38 completed; 150 juvenile cases per year;
•Poland: 200-300 per year (juveniles); 960 successful VOMs involving adults in 2010;
•Bulgaria: 2% of all court measures for juveniles involve RJ;
•Ukraine: 364 referrals of juveniles 2004-2011;
•Estonia: Use increasing (32 VOM in 2007, 417 in 2011). 2% of diversionary measures in 2007, 8% in 2011.
•Latvia: 2005 there 51 VOMs, 2013 about 950; 23% court sanctions are to community service

41. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
What are the reasons for low use of RJ in practice?
Lackofwillamongjudicialgatekeeperstouseit
•f.ex.distrustinlegitimacyofmediatorsasdeliverersofjustice;„
•monopolyofconflictresolution“; Inappropriate,unclearorlackoflegislativebasisreducesfaithinRJ;
•availabilityofotherdiversiona-ryoptionsthataremoreinlinewithtraditionalunderstandingofappropriateintervention;
•strictapplicationoftheprincipleoflegality
Austria; Bosnia-Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; England/Wales; Germany; Hungary; Italy; Lithuania; Macedonia; Montenegro; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Russia; Serbia; Slovenia; Spain; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine.

42. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder Dünkel
Lack of information and awareness of benefits of RJ (among legislators, politicians, judicial gatekeepers and general public)
Bosnia/Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Greece; Hungary;Latvia; Macedonia; Poland; Romania; Russia; Serbia; Slovenia; Slovakia; Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine;
Lack of will among legislators and politicians (in turn connectedto issues of poor/lack of statutory basis, funding, lack of information/awareness and punitive climate)
Bosnia/Herzegovina; Bulgaria; Croatia; England/Wales; Germany; Greece; Italy; Ireland; Lithuania; Macedonia; the Netherlands; Russia; Slovakia;Switzerland; Turkey; Ukraine;
PunitiveClimate
Bulgaria, England/Wales, Lithuania, Poland, Switzerland.

43. Evaluation of RJ measures concerning recidivism
•With few exceptions (England, US) almost no methodologically satisfying research on recidivism after RJ measures/processes exists.
•Some further research (Germany, Northern Ireland) indicates that RJ is able to reduce re- offending, at least is not less favourable compared to other non-custodial sanctions.

44. Evaluation in Germany
•There is no systematic and nationwide evaluation concerning later recidivism in Germany
•However, a few studies reveal that mediation is not less integrative than other juvenile justice measures.
•Successful cases of mediation had slightly lower re-offending rates than juveniles under traditional community sanctions (incidence rate: 1.4 : 2.1 further offences, r = .14, see Dölling/Hartmann/Traulsen, MschrKrim 2002, p. 185 ff.)
•In the Lüneburg mediation scheme 56% of bodily injury cases (n = 91) with mediation recidivated vs. 86% of the control group (n = 60), see Busse2001, p. 138.

45. Evaluation issues
•High rates of satisfaction among victims and offenders who have participated in restorative processes.
•So-called meta-analyses revealed that restorative justice programmes (VOM and conferencing) in terms of effectiveness achieved higher rates of satisfaction among both victims and offenders than traditional criminal justice responses, alsoperceptions of fairness.
•Restorative practices are often associated with promising effects on recidivism, as evidenced by a growing pool of research results

46. Evaluation issues
•Restorative justice does not have a negative impact on re-offending.
•Bonta et al. state: “Restorative justice interventions, on average, are associated with reductions in recidivism. The effects are small but they are significant. It is also clear that the more recent studies are producing larger effects.”

47. Evaluation issues
•A Study in Northern Ireland by Lyness/Tate (2011) found that court-ordered youth conferences held in 2008 were linked to lower re-offending rates (45.4%) compared to community-based disposals (53.5%) and youth discharged from custody (68.3%).
•Diversionary youth conferences had a rate of 29.4%, however there is a need for caution in weighting these findings due to selection- biases and offender-intrinsic characteristics.

48. Evaluation issues
•Sherman/Strang (2008) point out that restorative justice also has potentialto reduce the costs of criminal justice.
•Restorative practices in the context of diversioncan reduce court case-loads and thus the expense involved in bringing offences to justice.Furthermore, reducing the number of offenders coming before the courts can have down-tariffing effects on overall sentencing practices, as has recently been experienced in England/Wales.

49. Evaluation issues
•“Deflationary” effects can spread across the entire sentencing spectrum and thus reduce the use of costly custodial sentences.
•Finally, the potential positive effects on recidivism can imply lower costs occurring to society at large in the future.
•Restorative justice is a promising and desireable strategythat achieves the best outcomeswhen restorative processesare involved

50. 50
Country
Evaluation of the implementation of VOM programmes
Evaluation concerningrecidivism
Evaluationconcerning satisfaction of victims
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Austria
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Belgium
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
France
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Germany
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Greece
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Italy
No
No
No
No
No
No
Nether- lands
Yes
Yes
Yes (HALT)
No
Yes
Yes
Portugal
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Spain
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Switzer- land
Yes
n/a
No
n/a
Yes
n/a
Turkey
No
No
No
No
No
No

51. 51
Country
Evaluation of VOM programmes –Imple- mentation/outcomes of VOM meetings
Evaluation concerningrecidivism -results
Evaluationconcerning satisfaction of victims - results
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Juvenile J.
Adult C.L.
Austria
++
+
++
+
++
++
Belgium
++
++
n/a
n/a
++
++
France
+
+
No inf.
No inf.
+
+
Germany
++
+
+
+
++
+
Greece
-
-
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
Italy
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
Nether- lands
+
+
+/-(HALT)
No inf.
++
++
Portugal
+/-
-
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
Spain
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
Switzer- land
+
n/a
No inf.
n/a
++
n/a
Turkey
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
No inf.
++ very positive; + = positive; +/-= neutral/mixed outcomes; -negative outcomes)

52. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITY OF GREIFSWALD – DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY
Frieder DünkelCentral Issues –Outlook
•Researchingandexpanding„Conferencing“inEurope;
•ResearchingandexpandingtheuseofRestorativeProcessesandPracticesinprisons;
•TheconflictbetweentheparadigmsofPenalPopulismandRestorativeJustice;
•Theneedto„buildsocialsupport“forRestorativeJusticeinthegeneralpublic,amongcriminaljusticepractitioners,legislatorsandpoliticians;
•Theneedforlegislation,implementation,practiceandindeedresearchitselftobe„evidence-based.“

53. ERNST MORITZ ARNDT UNIVERSITÄT GREIFSWALD – LEHRSTUHL FÜR KRIMINOLOGIE
Dr. ChristineMorgenstern
53
Thank you for your attention!
For further information:
Frieder Dünkel
Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-University
of Greifswald,
Department of Criminology
Domstr. 20,
D-17487 Greifswald/Germany
E-mail: duenkel@uni-greifswald.de
Internet: http://jura.uni-greifswald.de/duenkel
Tel.: ++49-(0)3834-862138