Find what you need in Joint Commission The Source Cli

Find what you need
in Joint Commission: The Source
Click on the download icon
to download the issue
you want to browse
1
2

To find relevant content, either browse through the
issue, or use the keyboard shortcut CTRL +F and type in
a keyword. Use the Next button or arrow to advance to
the next location the words appears in the issue.
Click on any of these volumes
of The Source found under the
Available Periodicals heading
Begin by using the keyword
search line to enter keywords
related to your topic. Then click
the Search button. 3
1
THREE YEARS OF TEEN COURT OFFENDER OUTCOMES
Deborah Kirby Forgays
ABSTRACT
Since 1983, Teen Courts have offered a judicial altemative for
many adolescent
offenders. In the flrst year of the Whatcom County Teen Court
Program a
small sample of Teen Court offenders had more favorable
outcomes than did
Court Diversion offenders. In the current study, the results are
based on a
three-year sample of 84 Whatcom County adjudicated youths,

each with at
least one prior conviction. Overall, recidivism was lower for the
Teen Court
offenders than for flrst-time Court Diversion offenders.
Sentence completion
rates were comparable for the two groups. In addition to
behavioral outcomes,
responses on a satisfaction survey and a self-acceptance
inventory provide a
more complete view ofthe offenders' perspectives. One
unanticipated outcome
was the number of offenders who chose to continue involvement
with Teen
Court sessions, independent of sentencing requirements.
Since t h e early 1980s, Tieen Courts h a v e provided youthful
offenders
with an altemative to the standard juvenile justice system. The
sub-
stantive increase in youth courts, from fewer than 100 to over
1000, is
evidence of the strong advocacy for these programs (National
Youth
Court Center, 2005). Further, according to current outcome
evaluation
data, youth court offenders have lower recidivism rates than
offenders
in other juvenile adjudicating formats (Butts, Buck, &
Coggeshall,
2002). The majority of youth court programs focus on first-time
offend-
ers (Acker, Hendrix, Hogan, & Kordzek, 2001), although there
is gen-
eral acknowledgement that repeat youthful offenders constitute
a
major problem in the juvenile justice system (Umbreit, 1993).

Recently,
researchers reported that repeat offenders who were processed
The Whatcom County Teen Court is the result ofthe vision of
Tina Lanci of
Northwest Youth Services (NffYS), Judge Charles Snyder, and
Court Commis-
sioner Martha Gross. Cathy Beaty (NWYS) has put life-
sustaining organiza-
tion mto that vision. Thanks are due Lisa DeMilio of Interfaith
Community
Center, Kim Schuster of the Puhlic Defenders Office, Nan
DeSelover of the
Juvenile Justice Center, and to all ofthe community and student
volunteers
This research was funded by a grant 1-200-01100 from the
Governor's Juvenile
Justice Advisory Council of Washington State and the Office of
Juvenile Delin-
quency Prevention. |
Requests for reprints should be sent to Deborah Kirby Forgays,
Ph D De-
partment of Psychology, Western Washington University,
BeUikgham' WA
98225-9089.
ADOLESCENCE, Vol. 43, No. 171, Fall 2008
Libra Publishers, Inc., 3089C Clairemont Dr., PMB 383, San
Diego, CA 92117
through Teen Court (TC) had lower recidivism rates than did a
group
of first-time Court Diversion (CD) offenders (Forgays &

DeMilio, 2005).
However, the sample was small and represented only a single
year of
the program. In the present study, three years of outcome data
from
the Whatcom County, Washington State Teen Court program are
com-
pared with outcomes from the county Court Diversion program.
One key difference between altemative youth courts and the
typical
juvenile justice approach is the make-up of the court personnel.
In
the standard juvenile justice approach, including CD programs,
adults
represent youths in court and adults decide on the sentence. In
con-
trast, the youth court emphasis is on trial by peers—peer
counsel,
jurors, bailiff, clerk, and even peer judges. During the TC
session, the
adolescent offender observes the courtroom personnel —judge,
bailiff,
clerk, advocate—in socially responsible roles. Then the peer
jury de-
vises a sentence that provides the youth offenders with positive
com-
munity activities to enhance their commitment and involvement.
For
example, one sentence component may include serving on a TC
jury.
This activity places the offender in a socially responsible role,
working
with other adolescents to develop a sentence that refiects
community
values. Thus, through observation of and involvement in

appropriate
civic behavior, the offender who is adjudicated through TC
should be
more attached to their community and, therefore, less willing to
dis-
rupt the community with delinquent acts.
Restorative Justice Approach
In the standard legal system, the crime is against the state or
law—a
rather abstract concept for an adolescent. The goal of the
sentence
is to punish the offender. By contrast, within the restorative
justice
approach, the crime is against a person or community
(Bazemore,
2001; Bazemore & Maloney, 1994). In juvenile court or court
diversion
sentences, the offender is held responsible for the crime and
must
make restitution. The restorative justice sentence does not focus
solely
on punishment.
Rather, there are multiple goals—offender accountability,
commu-
nity protection, competency development, and youth advocacy
(Malo-
ney, Romig, & Armstrong, 1988). Community reparation
activities,
such as letters of apology or interaction with crime victims, are
de-
signed to educate the offending youth about the impact of the
crime
on the community and to provide the community with evidence

of the
offender's new understanding. A final component provides an
avenue
for the youth's "restoration" into the community as a socially
responsi-
ble citizen (see Godwin, 2001 for a more in-depth discussion of
restor-
474
ative justice; Maloney & Holcomb, 2001; Presser & Van
Voorhis, 2002).
This restoration is crucial because offending youths t5T)ically
need di-
rection to reinstate themselves positively with their peers and
adults.
An effective restorative justice sentence pairs accountability
with so-
cially responsible behavior for the offender.
However, although the components of restorative justice are
clearly
delineated, examinations of their efficacy are few. Well -
designed evalu-
ations of youth court programs are increasing but vary in their
focus.
Some researchers have identified attitude changes such as a
more posi-
tive view of police officers and the legal system after their
youth court
adjudication (Fox et al., 1994). In New Mexico and Kentucky,
evalua-
tors focused on recidivism rates (Harrison, Maupin, & Mays,
2001;

Minor, Wells, Soderstromj Bingham, & WiUiamson, 1999). For
exam-
ple, re-offense rates for jrouth court offenders in New Mexico
were
lower than those of any other diversion program in that state.
Further,
at one year follow-up, loyer recidivism was associated with
having
served on a youth court jury. In the Kentucky program,
adolescent
offenders who completed more hours of community service
were less
likely to re-offend. Neither program directly compared youth
court of-
fenders with youth offenders from other adjudicating formats.
Thus,
it was not possible to evaluate fully the impact of peer-
mandated sen-
tences.
More recent investigations of youth court programs have
included
comparisons with non-youth court offenders. In Idaho
researchers ran-
domly assigned first-time
court programs—Juvenile
charged youthful offenders to one of four
Accountability, Youth Court, Magistrate
Court, and Educational Control (Patrick, Marsh, Bundy,
Mimura, &
Perkins, 2004). The crime was limited to Minor in Possession
(MIP) of
alcohol or tobacco. There were no significant differences in
recidivism

across the four groups in the first year ofthe research project,
although
the authors noted a trend toward lower recidivism in the
Juvenile
Accountability group. Butts and colleagues (2002) reported that,
in
three ofthe four states surveyed, youth court offenders had
lower recid-
ivism rates than offenders processed through traditional juvenile
courts. In the fourth state] Maryland, the youth court and
diversion
rates were comparable. In the Butts et al. study, the adolescent
crimes
included a range of misdenieanors and gross misdemeanors.
Although
limited to a single data-collection period, the Butts et al. study
is note-
worthy for its multi-site controlled comparison of youth court
pro-
grams.
One possible reason for the dearth of comparison studies is the
diffi-
culty in identifying and obtaining an appropriate comparison
group. A
475
viable comparison group would be matched on characteristics
such as
crime, age, and gender. The comparison group should have
similar
adjudicating experiences to those of youth court defendants,
differing

only on the make-up of the sentencing group—peers versus
adults.
With these considerations in mind, CD youthful offenders were
se-
lected as the youth court comparison sample. CD is a program
designed
for first-time offenders of non-felony crimes. TC offenders were
adjudi-
cated through CD for their first crime but are not ehgible for
their
second offense. TC offenders' second offense falls into the same
cate-
gory as those of CD offenders—misdemeanors and gross
misdemean-
ors. CD and TC offenders have admitted their guilt and hence
are most
concerned with the sentence. In addition, reparation to the
community
is common to both TC and CD sentences. The main difference
between
TC and CD adjudication formats is the reliance on a peer jury
rather
than an adult panel. Thus, a comparison between TC and CD
offender
outcomes is a suitable method to examine the impact ofthe peer
sanc-
tion and modeling unique to youth courts.
Current Study
The current study examined TC offender outcomes across three
years. This article is a follow-up of the first-year findings of the
What-
com County Teen Court Program (for a more detailed
description see
Forgays & DeMiho, 2005). Outcome measures for the repeat

adolescent
offenders included self-report inventories and behavioral
indices. Of-
fenders described their Teen Court experiences and their own
social
competencies. Behavioral evidence of positive or negative
outcomes
was derived from sentence completion data, court records, and
involve-
ment in TC sessions subsequent to sentence requirements.
Recidivism
was defined as being charged with a crime after the TC session.
Sen-
tence completion and re-offense rates were compared with rates
of
first-time offenders adjudicated through CD programs. It was
antici-
pated that across the three years, TC offenders would have
higher
sentence completion and lower recidivism rates than CD
offenders.
METHOD
Participants
Eighty-four youthful offenders, 58 males and 26 females, agreed
to
be sentenced through the Whatcom County Teen Court program.
Of
those reporting ethnicity, 85% indicated Caucasian, 4%
Hispanic, 2%
African-American, 1% Native American, and 8% Other (East
Indian,
476

Ukrainian, or more than one ethnic identity). The average age
for boys
and girls was 15.55 years ¡and all but 3 lived at home with at
least one
biological parent. Over 91% of the offenders were enrolled in
school
and the remaining 9% either were not enrolled in a public
school or
were working on their GED. Boys and girls reported a different
pattern
of school performance. There were more boys on the extremes—
more
failing (22%) and more As & Bs (7%)—than girls (5% and 4%,
respec-
tively). There were more girls (58%) than boys (34%) reporting
grades
in the Cs & Ds range. In th[e past year, a substantial percentage
of girls
(38%) and boys (31%) had been suspended from school for
violations
unrelated to the TC crimel
Data on the CD comparison group were limited to sentence
comple-
tion and re-offense rates. Cases were randomly selected from a
list
obtained from Juvenile J t stice Services. The list had been
stratified
by gender, and CD crimes were limited to misdemeanors or
gross mis-
demeanors. All CD cases were first-time offenders.
Measures

Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment Record I
Evaluation
Form. The Intake & Assessment Record elicits offender
demographic
information and information about current and previous
offenses. The
Evaluation form identifies the degree to which each sentence
compo-
nent was completed. A post-sentence completion interview is
the final
part of the Evaluation Form.
Exit Survey is a nine-item satisfaction survey. The offenders
indicate
the perceived fairness of the sentence and their understanding of
the
Teen Court process. Sentence fairness is rated on a four-point
scale
from too harsh to very fair. The remaining survey items are
presented
in a yes/no format. "The sentence made sense to me" is an
example.
Intemal consistency is .67 across the three years.
Harter: Self-Perception P,rofile for Adolescents (Harter, 1985).
The
Harter inventory provides' information about how adolescents
see
themselves across domains, e.g., scholastic competence, social
accep-
tance, physical appearance', overall self-worth. The format has
good
face validity because the respondents are asked to rate
themselves in
relation to other adolescents and each option is presented as

equally
acceptable. The measure has been normed and standardized on
male
and female youths in the age range of the Teen Court offenders.
In
this study, analyses were restricted to the Self-Worth scale as
there
was no theoretical basis for anticipating other domain
differences. In-
ternal consistency was .85. When compared to the normative,
same-
477
age, same-gender population, TC offender scores were within
one stan-
dard deviation of the normative mean.
Behavioral indices. Sentence completion and recidivism
comprised
the two behavioral measures. Northwest Youth Services
(NWYS) per-
sonnel completed a checklist with the offender identifying each
part of
the sentence and the degree to which it had been completed—
not at
all, mostly not, partially completed, and fully completed.
Recidivism
was determined by a review of juvenile court records by court
personnel
blind to the goals of this study.
Procedure
All TC defendants were first referred to NWYS by the District

Attor-
neys office. Accompanied by a parent or guardian, the
adolescent com-
pleted the Northwest Youth Services Intake & Assessment
Record. As
a prerequisite, the offender pled guilty to the charge and the
parent
or guardian agreed to support the offender's sentence
completion. In
compliance with ethical guidelines for research with minors,
parent
and youth consent forms were obtained for all offenders. On the
night
of the TC session, prior to the hearing, the offender completed
the
Harter Self-Perception Profile. After the hearing, the offender
com-
pleted the Exit survey.
The NWYS Teen Court Coordinator monitored the offender for
com-
pletion of sentencing components, including fines and
restitution to
victims. The typical time frame for sentence completion was
two to
three months. At the end ofthat time, the offender completed an
out-
come evaluation/interview either at the NWYS office or by
phone. Re-
cidivism was evaluated six months after sentencing.
RESULTS
Descriptives
All TC crimes were misdemeanors or gross misdemeanors. The

most
frequent crime for boy and girls was shoplifting and/or theft.
However,
an equally frequent crime for girls was assault—almost three
times
more frequent than for boys. Minor in possession of alcohol or
mari-
juana (MIP) was the next most frequent offense for boys and
girls.
Boys were more likely to be involved with property damage, car
prowls,
criminal trespass, carrying a weapon, and disturbing the peace
than
were girls. Overall, boys were involved in more property-
related and
girls in more person-related crimes. There was an identifiable
victim
in 7% ofthe cases.
478
With regard to sentencing, 86% of boys and 95% of girls
received
sentences that included community service as well as sentencing
com-
ponents specifically related to their crime, such as a drug
evaluation,
letter of apology, restitution or appearance before a victim
impact
panel. Fifty-two percent of defendants were sentenced to serve
on one
TC jury for the month following their own court appearance. In
addi-

tion to serving on a TC jury as part of their sentence, previously
adjudi-
cated youth also served 14 times in the role of clerk, bailiff, or
advocate.
Participation in these roles was never part of a TC sentence and
there-
fore was voluntary, self-motivated behavior. Moreover, thirteen
(15.5%) former defendants (either Teen Court or Juvenile
Court)
served as jurors on multiple occasions, service that was also
voluntary
and not related to their sentence.
Sentence Completion & Recidivism Data
Across the three years o'f the funded Whatcom County Teen
Court
Program, 84 youthful offenders were sentenced by peer juries.
The end
point for sentence completion was three months, and recidivism
was
evaluated six months post TC session. Sentence completion
rates were
consistently high, ranging from 85-92%, yet recidivism varied
by year,
as seen in Table 1. When the recidivism data were collapsed
across
the three years, significantly fewer TC youth re-offended
compared to
first-time adjudicated CD youth (x
̂ (1,161) = 14.92, p < .001).
There
Table
Recidivism Rates for Teen Court and Court Diversion

Adolescent Offenders by Year
Year Teen Court Court Diversion
Year]
Year 2
Years
14%
12%
25%
31%
25%
80%
479
were no significant gender differences for sentence completion
or recid-
ivism. Boys and girls were equally likely to fulfill their
sentence re-
quirements and refrain from re-offending. As of the writing of
this
manuscript, 30 of the original 84 TC offenders are now at least
18
years of age. Based on a review of court records, 10% have re -
offended,

none with felony charges.
Harter Self-Acceptance Inventory (Harter, 1985)
Seventy-six offenders agreed to complete the Harter Self-
Perception
Profile questionnaire. A 2 (gender) by 3 (TC year) ANO VA
was per-
formed with Self-Worth as the dependent variable. There was a
sig-
nificant main effect in Self-Worth scores by Teen Court year, F
= (5,70)
= 5.70, p = .000, Adj. R'' = .24. There was no main effect for
gender
nor was the interaction significant. However, Year 3 offenders
reported
significantly higher self-acceptance than either Year 1 or Year 2
offend-
ers, F = (2,73) = 12.83, p = .000.
Offender Perspectives
Immediately following the TC session, defendants met with
NWYS
Staff to review the sentence requirements and to complete the
exit
survey. Responses were relatively uniform across gender and
across
all three years. Sentence ratings were as follows: too easy (0%
girls;
4% boys), too harsh (20% girls, 16% boys), fair enough (55%
girls, 48%
boys), and very fair (25% girls, 32% boys). The majority ofthe
offenders
indicated that the sentence components made sense (70% girls,
64%

boys), and that they received clear explanations for the Teen
Court
process (65% girls, 83% boys). Finally, 77% of girls and 82% of
boys
indicated that if they had a friend in trouble with the law, they
would
recommend the Teen Court option to their friend.
DISCUSSION
To date, the majority of youth court outcome evaluations limit
their
populations to first-time offenders (Butts et al., 2002; Patrick et
al.,
2004). In the current study, the focus was on repeat offenders.
Adoles-
cent jurors developed sentences based on restorative justice
compo-
nents—accountability, restoration, and offender re-engagement
in the
community. (For a more detailed description of juror sentencing
pat-
terns, see Forgays, DeMiho, & Schuster, 2004). The TC
offender out-
comes were compared with those of the first-time CD sample.
The
CD and TC samples had committed similar types of crimes and
were
480
matched on demographic variables.The key sample differences
were
that the TC sample included repeat offenders and received a

restor-
ative justice sentence from their adolescent peers rather than
from
adults.
When compared with the CD sample, the TC offenders had
lower
recidivism rates and comparable sentence completion rates.
Moreover,
only a small percentage of the now adult TC offenders have re-
of-
fended. Yet, there was substantial variabihty in recidivism
across the
three years in both the TC and CD samples. The dramatic
increase in
recidivism in the third year is somewhat perplexing. On the one
hand,
this increase can be placed in context—the TC recidivism rate
of 25%
was substantially lower than the 80% for the CD group. On the
other,
what factors contributed to the re-offense differences in Year 3?
The explanation for the increase does not appear to be related to
demographics. The distribution of crimes—e.g., shoplifting,
minor in
possession of alcohol or niarijuana (MIP)—^was comparable
across the
three years for TC and CDj offenders. For the TC offenders,
court proce-
dures and sentencing guidelines were the same. The TC gender
and
ethnic distributions were not significantly different across the
three
years.

One possibility is that Yjear 3 juvenile offenders may have
committed
more crimes than offenders in Years 1 and 2 adjudicated crimes.
Ac-
cording to national surveys, youthful offenders report
conimitting more
crimes than indicated by| national crime statistics (Snyder &
Sick-
mund, 1999). Thus, Year 3 offenders with a first or second
charge may
have broken the law before, but had not been caught. In
addition, when
county prosecutors were faced with a backlog of Minor in
Possession
(MIP) cases, at times they would dismiss the charges if the
charged
adolescent completed a Drug & Alcohol Evaluation. In these
cases,
although a youth's crime is recorded as a first offense, that
youth may
have been charged previously with an MIP. Thus, the Year 3
offending
youths may be more practiced in committing crimes and more
likely
to re-offend.
From another perspectivje, the Harter Self-Worth scores may
provide
some explanation for the TC sample. During the first two years,
the
overall Self-Worth subscale scores were the lowest scores for
male and
female offenders. This suggests that these youthful offenders
have low
self-acceptance, wishing that they could be different. Certainly,
low

self-acceptance can be a cause for concern. However, thé stated
desire
to behave differently may indicate that these offenders are
amenable
to the restorative justice opportunities to act more responsibly.
In con-
trast, year 3 offenders' overall self-worth scores were
significantly
481
higher, suggesting an inflated sense of self. Similar to
adolescents with
conduct disorder, offenders with an unrealistically positive self-
view
may be less responsive to interventions that rely on social
bonds.
(Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell, 2000; David & Kistner,
2000).
Since the restorative justice approach relies on the youths'
willingness
to modify their behavior to gain social acceptance, the TC
experience
may have little effect on these adolescents' delinquent behavior.
Al-
though the Harter is not designed as a diagnostic tool, the self-
esteem
information provides some direction in understanding the spike
in
Year 3 recidivism rates.
The determination of program effectiveness is often limited to
objec-
tive outcomes such as sentence completion and recidivism rates.

Yet,
the offender's perspective on the TC process and sentence can
be
equally informative. Overall, the offenders had favorable
comments
about their TC experience, with the majority willing to
recommend the
option to others in the same situation. These comments provide
rich
detail and anecdotal support for TC as a positive infiuence on
the
offender. However, the most powerful indicator of a TC impact
is
through self-directed offender behavior. A number of former TC
defen-
dants returned to serve as a juror even after fulfilling their
sentence
requirements. Moreover, former youthful offenders volunteered
as ad-
vocate, bailiff, and clerk to maintain contact with the TC
program. A
few former offenders even joined the Teen Court Student
Advisory
Board. This self-determined involvement is consistent with
empow-
erment theory and a strong endorsement of the TC experience.
The
offenders accepted the sanction from their peers by completing
their
sentences. In addition, the former offender utilized TC court
roles to
re-engage with a peer community. Earlier youth court
evaluations
noted that youthful offenders who completed jury duty were less
likely
to re-offend (Harrison et al., 2001). Future investigations

should ex-
plore more systematically the possible relationship between
serving in
a TC role and positive self-view, as well as a link to lower
recidivism.
The positive impact of jury duty may be due to many factors.
By
observing non-adjudicated adolescents and working with them
on a
common task, the former offender practices social problem-
solving
skills. Further, becoming a member of the jury is personally
empow-
ering and allows the former youthful offender to see him/herself
as a
valuable community member. Parent comments also noted
positive
effects, including better communication with their adolescent
and im-
proved attitudes about school. Thus, improved parent
relationships,
greater commitment to school, and continued involvement with
the
Teen Court program should result in less delinquency; i.e.,
adolescents
with strengthened social bonds would be less hkely to re-offend.
482
Future Directions
As with any applied research endeavor, this project had
hmitations.

Sentence completion, recidivism, and self-reported personal and
family
status form the basis of the Teen Court six-month follow-up.
Clearly,
more extensive post-sentence data from the offenders and their
parents
could expand the hst of possible contributors to lower
recidivism. How-
ever, after sentence completion, the youthful offenders are
reluctant
to participate in additiorial information gathering. Although
such re-
luctance is understandab|le, a continuing information gap
remains re-
garding developmental niilestones such as high school
completion or
work history. One ongoing limitation is the relatively small
number of
offenders processed through i the Teen Court system compared
with
the total juvenile justice population. The size of the group is
tied di-
available, the program is
rectly to funding. If cour.ty, state, and federal resources were
made
in place to expand its services.
However, even with these constraints, the study results are
consis-
tent with a growing data base on youth courts that apply
restorative
justice tenets. In the Whatcom County Teen Court Program,
repeat
offenders had a lower recidivism rate than did first-time Court

Diver-
sion offenders. Moreover, the TC program provides an
opportunity for
non-offending high school students to support their peers, leam
about
the justice system, and contribute to their community in a
meaningful
way (Forgays et al., 2004|. Thus, judgment by one's peers
appears to
be an effective deterrent to future crime, especially when the
offender
has the opportunity to become part ofthe Teen Court experience
in a
later socially responsible role.
REFERENCES
Acker, J. R., Hendrix, P. N., Hogan, L., & Kordzek, A. (2001).
Building a better
youth court. Law & Policy, 23, 197-215.
Baumeister, R. F., Bushman| B. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2000).
Self-esteem,
narcissism, and aggression: Does violence result from low self-
esteem or
from threatened egotism? Current Directions in Psychological
Science
9, 26-29.
Bazemore, G. (2001). Young people, trouble, and crime:
Restorative justice as
a normative theory of informal social control and social support
Youth &
Society, 33, 199-226.
Bazemore, G., & Maloney, D. (1994). Rehabilitating community

service: To-
ward restorative service sanctions in a balanced justice system.
Commu-
nity Service Federal Probation, March 24-35.
Butts, J., Buck, J., & Coggeshall, M. (2002). The impact of
Teen Court on
young offenders. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute.
483
David, C. F., & Kistner, J. A. (2000). Do positive self-
perceptions have a "dark
side"? Examination of the link between perceptual bias and
aggression.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 28, 327-337.
Forgays, D. K., & DeMilio, L. (2005). Is Teen Court effective
for repeat offend-
ers? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Crimi-
nology, 49, 107-118.
Forgays, D. K., DeMilio, L., & Schuster, K. (2004). Teen Court:
What jurors can
tell us about the process. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 55,
25-34.
Fox, J. W., Minor, K., & Pelkey, W. L. (1994). The relationship
between law-
related education diversion and juvenile offenders' social- and
self-per-
ceptions. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 61-77.

Godwin, T. (2001). The role of restorative justice in Teen
Courts: A preliminary
look. Lexington, Kentucky: National Youth Court Center.
Harrison, P., Maupin, J. R., & Mays, G. L. (2001). Teen Court:
An examination
ofthe processes and outcomes. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 243-
264.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the Self-perception Profile for
Adolescents. Uni-
versity of Denver.
Maloney, D., & Holcomb, D. (2001). In pursuit of community
justice. Youth &
Society, 33, 296-313.
Maloney, D., Romig, D., & Armstrong, T. (1988). The Balanced
Approach in
practice. Juvenile & Family Court Journal, 13-19.
Minor, K. I., Wells, J. B., Soderstrom, I. R., Bingham, R., &
Williamson, D.
(1999). Sentence completion and recidivism among juveniles
referred to
Teen Court. Crime & Delinquency, 45, 4 6 7 ^ 8 0 .
National Youth Court Center (2005). Youth court stats.
Retrieved August 16,
2005, from http://www.youthcourt.net
Patrick, S., Marsh, R., Bundy, W., Mimura, S., & Perkins, T.
(2004). Control
study of juvenile diversion programs: An experiment in juvenile
diver-
sion—the comparison of three methods and a control group.

Social Sci-
ence Journal, 41, 129-135.
Presser, L., & Van Voorhis, P. (2002). Values and evaluation:
Assessing pro-
cesses and outcomes of retorative justice programs. Crime &
Delin-
quency, 48, 162-188.
Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and
victims: 1999
National Report. Retrieved January 12,2004 from
http://www.ncjrs.org/
hml/ojjdp/nationalreport99
Umbreit, M. (1993). Juvenile offenders meet their victims.
Family and Concili-
ation Courts Review, 31, 90-100.
484
Social Justice Research, Vol. 17, No. 3, September 2004 ( C©
2004)
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views
of the Public
Julian V. Roberts1,3 and Loretta J. Stalans2
Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a

truly global phe-
nomenon. Although retributive justice has dominated the penal
landscape, more
recently, restorative principles at sentencing have attracted
increased attention.
Restorative sentencing emphasizes the importance of
compensation and recon-
ciliation between victims and offenders and pays less attention
to establishing
proportionality between the seriousness of the offense and the
severity of the sen-
tence imposed. Although voluminous (and proliferating), the
scholarly literature
on restorative justice has to date neglected one critical issue:
public opinion with
respect to this justice paradigm. Public opinion researchers too,
have generally
overlooked this topic. The goal of this paper is to determine
which elements
of the new paradigm generate public approval, and which
features are likely
to encounter or provoke public opposition, drawing upon related
international
research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–
2002). The review
reveals widespread support for “restorative” sentencing options,
such as commu-
nity service, compensation, and restitution, particularly when
applied to young
offenders. However, it also seems clear that public support for
these alternatives
to punitive sentencing options declines as the seriousness of the
offence increases,
suggesting strong public adherence to the retributive principle
of proportionality
in sentencing.

KEY WORDS: restorative justice; public opinion.
Within the past decade, restorative justice has emerged as a
truly global
phenomenon. Restorative programs and policies have been
created in most indus-
trialized and many developing nations. Restorative initiatives
exist at all stages of
1Department of Criminology, University of Ottawa, Canada.
2Department of Criminal Justice, Loyola University, Chicago.
3All correspondence should be addressed to Julian V. Roberts,
Department of Criminology, University
of Ottawa, Canada; e-mail: [email protected]
315
0885-7466/04/0900-0315/0 C© 2004 Plenum Publishing
Corporation
316 Roberts and Stalans
the criminal process, from policing to prisons and community-
based corrections
(e.g., Braithwaite, 1999; Walgrave, 2002). Defining terms such
as “restorative
justice” or “restorative sentencing” is not easy, as the initiatives
encompassed by
these terms vary widely across jurisdictions. Nevertheless, some
defining char-
acteristics are clear. In contrast to retributive justice,
restorative justice stresses
reconciliation between the offender, the victim, and the
community to which both

belong. At the stage of sentencing, restorative justice
emphasizes the importance
of responding to the needs of victims and encourages the
offender to accept re-
sponsibility and express remorse. Restorative sentencing
privileges sanctions such
as compensation and community service. Restorative justice is
more concerned
about the interests of victims and less concerned with imposing
punishments pro-
portional to the seriousness of the crime. In contrast,
proportionality is a central
defining characteristic of retributive sentencing (von Hirsch,
1993).
Although restorative justice is sometimes contrasted with
retributive models
of sentencing, this dichotomy oversimplifies the issues (see
discussion in Daly,
2000). Restorative sanctions often carry onerous requirements
for the offender, and
retributive sentencing frequently incorporates compensatory
dispositions that are
more usually associated with a restorative philosophy. For
example, if a restora-
tive conference results in an agreement that the offender
perform many hours
of community service, and this turns out to be work of a quite
degrading na-
ture, the difference between a restorative and punitive sanction
disappears. A
better contrast can perhaps be made between restorative and
punitive models of
sentencing (McCold, 1996). Restorative sentencing privileges
compensation and
community-based sanctions that keep the offender in the

community in order to
facilitate restoration. Punitive sentencing stresses the use of
sanctions that punish
(and possibly deter) the offender.
The scholarly literature on restorative justice has to date
overlooked one
critical issue: the level of public support for this justice
paradigm. Except for a
brief discussion in the Cullen et al. (2000) review of public
attitudes to crime and
justice, almost nothing has been written about public reaction to
restorative justice
as it applies to sentencing.4 It is a curious omission, in light of
the importance of
community support and participation in the restorative justice
paradigm.
It is important to know more about public views in the area of
sentencing
policy for several reasons. First, in restorative justice
paradigms, the public and
victim are expected to take an active role in the sentencing
process. Second,
legislators and policy-makers frequently advert to the need for
policies that are
consistent with public views, or which will promote public
confidence in the
administration of justice. Indeed, for better or worse (usually
the latter), many penal
policies emerging in the United States and elsewhere derive
their impetus from
the force of public opinion, or politicians’ interpretations of
public opinion (see
4Belgrave (1995) summarizes findings from a focus group in

New Zealand (see also Lee, 1996).
Restorative Sentencing: Exploring the Views of the Public 317
Roberts el al. 2003; Tonry, 2001). Legislators are unlikely to
promote restorative
justice if they perceive that its policies engender public
opposition, a point noted
by several commentators.5
It is also necessary to have a scientific evaluation of public
opinion because a
number of studies have uncovered a gap between the views that
the public actually
holds, and the opinions ascribed to the public by politicians. In
several areas,
politicians appear to have misread public opinion. For example,
the argument has
been made that the public strongly support mandatory sentences
of imprisonment,
the “War on Drugs,” and the elimination of prison programs that
promote the
rehabilitation of prisoners. None of these assertions is
consistent with the findings
from systematic research (see Applegate, 1997; Cullen et al.,
2000; Roberts, 2003).
Finally, restorative justice claims to offer a superior alternative
to conven-
tional responses to crime that stress punishment and deterrence.
Public reaction
therefore represents an additional dimension on which to make
comparisons and
explore commonalities between retributive and restorative

models of justice (see
Van Ness and Strong, 2002; von Hirsch et al., 2003, for further
discussion). More-
over, polls routinely reveal that the general public is
dissatisfied with current
responses to crime and has little confidence in the criminal
justice system (e.g.,
Hough and Roberts, 2004b; Sherman, 2002). We need to know
whether the growth
of restorative initiatives will ameliorate or exacerbate the near
universal problem
of low levels of public confidence in the administration of
justice.
Focus on Sentencing
Although restorative justice has application to all areas of
justice, there are
several justifications for focusing on public reaction to
sentencing. First, sen-
tencing represents the apex of the criminal process, and attracts
considerable
public and media attention. Second, any conflict between public
conceptions and
restorative practice is likely to be most apparent at this stage of
the criminal
justice system. Restorative such as conferences that result in the
diversion of
the offender from court processing apply to the less serious
forms of offending.
However, restorative sanctions that replace (rather than
supplement) more puni-
tive dispositions—particularly imprisonment—in cases of
serious violent crime
represent a far greater challenge for restorative justice
advocates.

This paper explores public reaction to restorative sentencing,
drawing upon
research published in English over the past 20 years (1982–
2002).6 The aim of
the review is not to determine whether the public is for or
against restorative
5For example, Belgrave (1995) notes that “If restorative justice
is to be introduced, or maintained, in
any country as a substantial part of the way crime is dealt with
it will be important to know how
acceptable restorative justice is to the general public.” (p. 1)
6An electronic literature search was conducted of all relevant
scholarly databases and restorative justice
websites. As well, a survey of key informants generated a
number of unpublished surveys.
sentencing options. A wealth of research has found that the
public holds complex
views about the appropriate response to offenders and the
entitlements of crime
victims; accordingly, it would be an oversimplification to
expect the public to
assume a position definitively for or against restorative justice.
Instead, we seek
to determine which elements of this paradigm attract public
approval, and which
features are likely to provoke public opposition.
PUBLIC AWARENESS OF RESTORATIVE SENTENCING

OPTIONS
The state of public attitudes must be considered in the context
of public
knowledge of restorative justice. Although restorative justice
has clear historical
antecedents (see Braithwaite, 1999), it is unlikely that members
of the public are
familiar with more recent restorative innovations such as
conferences or sentencing
circles. In one of the few examinations of public knowledge of
restorative justice
programming, Doble and Greene (2000) found that only 11% of
the sample
were aware of restorative programs in their state, including
reparative boards, a
restorative sentencing option.7 The 1996 British Crime Survey
found that only
16% of the public identified compensation as a sanction (Hough
and Roberts,
1998). The one study of public awareness of a restorative
sentencing option in a
developing nation also revealed low levels of awareness: less
than half a sample
of Ugandans had heard of community service as a sentencing
option (Sita and
Edanyu, 1999). Thus although, as will be seen over the course
of this essay, the
public are very supportive of compensatory sentencing options,
knowledge of
restorative options tends to be rather poor.
This lack of familiarity may impede public acceptance of
restorative sentenc-
ing options. Experimental research has demonstrated that when
people are made

aware of alternative sentencing options, support for
imprisonment declines. In one
study, involving the British Crime Survey, all respondents were
asked to sentence
a recidivist offender convicted of residential burglary. Half the
respondents were
given a “menu” of all available sentencing options (restorative
and punitive) while
the other half were simply asked to sentence the offender
without having been
made aware of all the options. (Respondents were assigned to
condition at ran-
dom). Of those who sentenced the offender without the benefit
of the sentencing
options, 22% favored compensation; the percentage choosing
this option among
respondents who had been provided with the list of sentencing
options was twice
as high (44%; see Hough and Roberts, 1998).8
7These boards meet directly with the offender and devise an
appropriate reparation plan designed to
repair the harm inflicted on the victim (see Doble and Greene,
2000, p. 21).
8It is worth noting that support for the restorative sanction in
the “informed” condition was accom-
panied by a corresponding decline in support for the punitive
option of imprisonment (Hough and
Roberts, 1998). Since multiple responses were possible,
respondents could have chosen to impose
imprisonment and a restorative sanction. Thus the decline in
support for imprisonment represents a
genuine shift, and not an artifact of the wording of the question.

PUBLIC ATTITUDES TO RESTORATIVE SENTENCING
OPTIONS
It is clear that among the broad panoply of alternative
sentencing options
available to judges in most western nations, those with a
restorative purpose are
particularly popular with the public. Doble (1998) repor ts a
typical finding: New
Hampshire residents were asked to express their support for, or
opposition to,
alternative sanctions. Some of these sanctions could be
described as restorative,
others as punitive in nature. Restitution and community service
(which have a
restorative component), were supported by significantly higher
percentages of
respondents than the punitive alternatives to incarceration. For
example, fully
79% of the sample was strongly in favor of restitution,
compared to only 54%
who favored a “military-style” discipline program, and 56%
who supported house
arrest. Similar findings emerge from earlier surveys of the
public in other coun-
tries. Wright (1989) found that fully 85% of Britons held the
view that it was a
good idea to make some offenders perform community service
rather than go to
prison.
One of the most convincing demonstrations of the strength of
public support

for restorative rather than punitive sentencing comes from a
comprehensive survey
conducted by Boers and Sessar (1989). German respondents
were presented with
a series of criminal cases to consider, and were asked which of
a number of
responses was most appropriate. These ranged from a purely
restorative to a purely
punitive nature. The most restorative response option was “a
meeting between
victim and offender to arrive at a restitution agreement” and the
“purest” punitive
response was “the offender should be punished. Even if he
provides restitution
to the victim, the punishment should not be dispensed with or
reduced.” In four-
fifths of the cases, respondents favored a resolution that
consisted entirely or
partially of a restitution-based agreement between offender and
victim. The general
finding that support for imprisonment declines precipitously
when the offender
has made restitution has now been replicated in other
jurisdictions (see Sessar,
1999).
The Importance of Proportionality and Crime Seriousness
Restorative justice advocates are divided with respect to the
role of propor-
tionality in sentencing. Van Ness and Strong (2002) and
Walgrave and Geudens
(1997) distinguish between retributive and restorative
proportionality. According
to the retributive version, the severity of the sentence must
reflect the serious-

ness of the crime for which it is imposed (see von Hirsch,
1993). According to
restorative proportionality, the critical relationship is between
the seriousness of
the crime and the “degree of restorative effort required by the
offender” (Walgrave
and Geudens, 1997, p. 376). Restorative proportionality requires
offenders to
apologize, to offer compensation, and to make other gestures
(such as community
service) that become more onerous in relation to the degree of
harm inflicted, and
are related to repairing the harm that the crime caused.
Described in such terms,
restorative justice offers an alternative to the central guiding
principle of retributive
justice.
No empirical research has directly explored the relative degree
of public sup-
port for these two competing versions of proportionality.
However, the retributive
version of proportionality is clearly important to public
conceptions of sentencing.
Support for proportional sentencing has emerged repeatedly
from many studies
of public opinion conducted in several countries, and using
different research
methodologies (e.g., Darley et al., 2000; Gebotys and Roberts,
1987). The general
finding is that the severity of punishments favored by the public

rises in direct
proportion to the seriousness of the crime, although the
relationship is far from
perfect (Rossi et al., 1985).
Research with German respondents also has found that public
support for the
restorative response to an offense declined steadily as the
seriousness of the crime
increased (see Boers and Sessar, 1989). The central role of
crime seriousness
as a determinant of public support for restorative initiatives also
emerges from
Doble and Greene (2000). They found very strong public
support for sentencing
by “Community Reparations Boards,” which work with a judge
to determine and
oversee the sentencing of nonviolent offenders. Rather than
send the offender to
prison, these boards focus on developing alternative
dispositions with a strong
restorative component, including the imposition of community
work and resti-
tution. When asked their reaction to this concept, 92% of
respondents were in
favor of the concept. However, when asked to consider some
specific offender
scenarios, a quite different pattern emerged. For the most
serious crimes (rape,
armed robbery), there was almost no support for assignment to a
reparative board
(percentages under 5%). For less serious offenses, the level of
public support was
much stronger. For shoplifting, auto theft, and theft, over two-
thirds of the sample
favored the use of a reparative board over imprisonment. As

with several findings
in this area, this one has been replicated in other jurisdictions,
suggesting that
there may well be cross-cultural consistency in public attitudes
(e.g., Russell and
Morgan, 2001).
Psychological Explanations for Why the Public
Supports Restorative Justice Sentencing
In the remainder of this paper we will document the public’s
support and
opposition to restorative justice under different circumstances.
First, however, we
identify psychological theories that provide some explanations
for why the public
supports restorative justice, but principally for less serious
cases of offending. Two
influential theories in psychology provide a basis from which
we can obtain an
understanding about the public’s attitudes toward restorative
justice. These theories
are the group value model (Lind, 1995; Lind and Tyler, 1988)
and attribution theory
(Finchman and Jaspars, 1980; Hart and Honore, 1959; Heider,
1958; McGillis,
1978).
The group value model assumes that people place great
importance on their
status and membership in social groups (Lind and Tyler, 1988).

Feelings of in-
security about their status in society often lead people to seek
clues from the
behavior of others to assess their status. Lind and Tyler’s
(1988) group value
model predicts that procedures that reaffirm group membership
will be regarded
positively. Two key elements of just procedures from a group
value model per-
spective are providing an opportunity to be heard and providing
dignified treat-
ment (for a review of empirical research see Lind, 1995; Lind
and Tyler, 1988).
The group value model suggests that the public may prefer
restorative justice
sentencing conferences compared to adversarial sentencing
hearings because the
conferences allow both the victim and offender an opportunity
to be heard by
the other side. In addition, the public believes that a “level
playing field” is a
critical component of a fair process and that adversarial
procedures are unfairly
tilted against the poor (Finkel, 2000). Thus restorative
sentencing conferences
provide a more equitable environment between victims and
offenders. Finally,
the group value model suggests a central reason why the public
may prefer
restorative sentencing: it emphasizes that the offender has lost
his/her status as
a respected member of the community and must perform certain
reparative acts
to regain status in the group. The assumption that people value
belonging to
groups and communities underlies Braithwaite’s Reintegrative

Shaming concept
(Braithwaite, 1989) and is central to the restorative justice
process. This assump-
tion receives support from social psychological research (see
Lind and Tyler,
1988).
Attribution theory also explains why the public supports the use
of restorative
sentencing and restorative conferences. This theory proposes
that people seek
explanations for crimes and inappropriate behavior. People seek
explanations in
order to determine whether the wrongdoer will commit the act
again, as well as to
determine the appropriate response or punishment (Heider,
1958; McGillis, 1978).
People want to know whether, and to what extent, the offender
should be blamed
for the crime. Attribution research shows that people make a
distinction between
responsibility and blameworthiness. An individual may be held
responsible for a
crime, (because they committed the crime), and at the same time
not be blamed
for the offense. Blameworthiness refers to the extent to which a
person deserves
to be punished for committing a wrongful act. A man who steals
to feed a starving
family is responsible for the theft but is less deserving of
punishment than a man
who steals to support a drug habit.
Research on intuitive perceptions of unfairness indicates that
people believe
that assessments of responsibility and blameworthiness should

be individualized
(Finkel, 2000). Research on attribution theory has revealed that
people favor
more severe punishment when they believe that the crime was
caused by stable
internal factors such as character or personality traits, and are
more supportive of
community-based sentences when the crime was caused by
external factors such as
unemployment, victim provocation, immaturity, or the influence
of associates (for
a review of this research see Lurigio et al., 1994). People are
more likely to infer
internal causes when the offender has a prior criminal record or
has committed
a serious violent crime (e.g., Landy and Aronson, 1969; Lussier
et al., 1977),
and based on these explanations are more likely to believe that
the offender will
commit additional crimes (Carroll, 1978; Carroll and Payne,
1977). Restorative
sentencing is designed to repair the harm done to the victim and
community,
and makes a clear connection between the factors related to why
the offender
committed the crime and the reparative sentence.
A central feature of restorative sentencing conferences is that
the offender is
encouraged to accept responsibility for the crime and to
apologize to the victim and

community. Several restorative justice models require an oral or
written apology
from the offender to the victim as part of the restorative
sentence. Expressions
of remorse and apologies may affect the extent to which the
public attributes
the crime to internal causes (and therefore blames the offender).
Apologies for
culpable conduct are expected in most cultures and have a clear
impact on public
sentencing preferences. The public attributes less blame to
people who commit
minor transgressions of social norms when these individuals
apologize (e.g., Darby
and Schlenker, 1989; Ohbuchi et al., 1989).
Several experimental studies have found that apologies and the
expression
of remorse decrease the severity of the sentences recommended
by members of
the public (Harrel, 1981; Robinson et al., 1994; Scher and
Darley, 1997). For
example, offenders who appeared to be remorseful were
sentenced to shorter
prison sentences than offenders who did not express remorse
(Robinson et al.,
1994; see also Kleinke et al., 1992). Additionally, respondents
were more willing
to recommend victim–offender mediation (rather than a more
punitive alternative)
if the offenders expressed remorse (Bilz, 2002). Experimental
research using
children and adults in Germany has also found that apologies
influenced the
severity of assigned punishments for property and battery
crimes (see Hommers,

1988; Hommers and Endres, 1991). Moreover, the more
extensive the apology,
the greater the effect it has on reducing the severity of
recommended punishments
(Scher and Darley, 1997).
Psychological research on sentencing preferences has found that
the public
prefers individualized justice (Finkel, 2000; for a review see
Roberts & Stalans,
1997). Both attribution theory and the group value model may
explain why public
support for restorative sanctions declines as the crime increases
in seriousness.
The group value model predicts that people will want to provide
procedures that
provide an opportunity to be heard only to members of their
own group and are
more self-interested when dealing with members from other
groups. As crimes
become more violent and serious, people will attribute the crime
to internal causes
and conclude that the offender is dangerous and immoral.
Therefore, offenders
who commit serious crimes are seen as belonging to the
criminal subculture and
not to law-abiding society.
Another explanation for the declining public support for
restorative sen-
tencing in serious cases concerns the principle of retributive

proportionality. If
the public see restorative interventions as being less punitive
than conventional
criminal justice processing, then these sanctions become less
plausible in direct,
inverse relation to the seriousness of the offense under
consideration. However,
public adherence to proportionality only goes so far as an
answer; as noted, a form
of proportionality could be incorporated into a restorative
model of sentencing.
Future research needs to examine whether restorative
proportionality addresses
these concerns. 9
Additionally, public support for retributive proportionality may
explain some
opposition to some restorative programs. Thus although there
was widespread
support for diversion and the use of reparative boards for
nonviolent offenders,
more respondents in the Doble and Greene (2000) study had a
more negative than
positive view of the state’s furlough program. The explanation
for this apparent
inconsistency would appear to be that furloughs involve a more
serious offender
population, a finding confirmed by comments made in focus
groups conducted by
the same researchers (see Doble and Greene, 2000, pp. 63–64).
Similarly, victim–
offender mediation programs are seen by the public as being
less appropriate for the
more serious forms of offending. In a sentencing scenario study,
participants were
less willing to send the offender to victim–offender mediation

as the seriousness of
the offense increased. For example, they were most reluctant to
send an offender
who stalked his ex-girlfriend, and a terrorist who bombs a
bookstore (Bliz, 2002).
A final explanation for the public support for restorative
options for less
serious offenses, and punitive responses for serious crime
invokes the philosophy
of sentencing. Public models of the purposes of sentencing are
as complex and
as context-specific as those held by the judiciary. It is likely
that the philosophy
underlying sentencing is transformed by the seriousness of the
offense from a
reparative to a punitive model. The public may see little
necessity to punish many
offenders as long as adequate reparation to the victim has been
made. On the
other hand, even complete restitution cannot prevent the public
from desiring
to punish serious offending. When this philosophical shift (from
restoration to
retribution) occurs, restorative sanctions lose their power to
further the goal of
sentencing, namely punishment, and the public revert to the
most punitive of
sanctions (imprisonment).
9It is possible that compensation—however large—is unable to
create a proportional response. Doob
and Marinos (1995) found that even when members of the
public were able to impose unlimited fines,
people still favored incarcerating the offender if the offence
involved serious violence.

Independent of the issue of proportionality, it is possible that
the sentencing
purpose guiding the public changes with the nature of the crime,
and in partic-
ular the seriousness of the offense. There is empirical support
for this hypothe-
sis. Several studies have found that the public pursue the goals
of rehabilitation
and restoration in the less serious forms of offending (e.g.,
Roberts, 1988). For
these purposes, restitution, compensation, and community
service are perceived
as ideal dispositions. With respect to the most serious forms of
offending that do
not contain extenuating external factors, the sentencing purpose
favored by the
public shifts to punitive goals that are naturally associated with
nonrestorative op-
tions, principally imprisonment (see McFatter, 1978; Roberts
and Stalans, 1997,
pp. 199–202).
Although the public is less supportive of restorative sanctions
for serious
or violent crimes, the attraction of compensatory sanctions is
not restricted to
property crimes. If restitution is made, it can even undermine
public support for
the death penalty. McGarrell and Sandys (1996) found that 76%
of a sample of
Indiana residents supported the death penalty when no

alternative was presented,
40% supported the death penalty over life imprisonment without
parole, and 26%
supported the death penalty when the alternative of restitution
to the family cou-
pled with life imprisonment without parole was presented.
Respondents preferred
the alternative of restitution to the family (coupled with life
imprisonment without
parole) over the alternative of life imprisonment without parole.
These findings
have been replicated in other states (see Bowers, 1993). Thus,
part of the expla-
nation for why support for restorative sanctions decreased for
serious crimes may
be due to the research designs of past studies. In several
studies, the public was
forced to choose between restorative or retributive sanctions.
The death penalty
studies show that the public wants both kinds of sanctions for
serious violent
crimes.
The sparse descriptions of crimes in prior research also raise
questions about
whether public support for restorative sanctions actually
decreases for all types of
serious or violent crimes. The scenarios did not include violent
crimes in which the
offender committed the violent act due in part to external
circumstances. The public
may not blame offenders who commit homicide due to external
factors if such
circumstances suggest that offenders are of good character.
There are examples
of murders or homicides where offenders may merit restorative

sanctions rather
than punitive sanctions, namely battered women killing their
abusive partners,
active euthanasia at the terminally ill victim’s pleading requests
to die, or a father
accused of negligent homicide because he forgot to put a
seatbelt on his son
who subsequently died in a car accident. In these types of
homicide cases, juries
have acquitted the defendants even though the prosecutor had
enough evidence
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant
committed the crime (see
Roberts et al., 2003, Chap. 6). Juries assessed the character of
the offender and
victim and concluded that the defendants had good character
and committed
unlawful acts due to extenuating external factors. These jury
nullification cases
illustrate that the public’s conception of justice includes mercy
and forgiveness.
Thus, another reason why the public supports restorative
sentencing is that it is
consistent with their desire to exercise clemency for certain
types of offenders and
offenses.
EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON RESTORATIVE SANCTIONS
Restitution and Compensation

A theme that emerges from almost every empirical study that
has investigated
public sentencing preferences over the past 30 years concerns
the importance of
restitution and compensation. A generation ago, Shaw (1982)
found that two-
thirds of a sample of Britons supported greater use of restitution
as a strategy to
reduce the size of the prison population. In a survey of the
Dutch public, 89%
of respondents believed that requiring the offender to make
compensation to the
victim was a suitable way of responding to the crime (Wright,
1989). In the United
States, Doble (1994) asked the public to consider changes they
would favor with
respect to dealing with offenders. Mandatory restitution
attracted near unanimity
(96% were in favor).
In addition to the appeal of restitution at a general level,
sanctions that
incorporate restitution attract substantial support from members
of the public
when they are asked to sentence offenders (e.g., Gandy, 1978;
Hudson, 1992).
In an early demonstration of the importance of restitution to the
public, Galaway
(1984) found that across six different crime scenarios, support
for incarcerating the
offender declined dramatically when the offender was required
to make restitution
to the victim.
Galaway’s finding using New Zealanders has subsequently been
replicated

in several other jurisdictions. Bae (1992) found that American
respondents who
were presented with restitution as one of the sentencing options
were significantly
less likely to choose imprisonment for a range of property
offenses than were
respondents who were not given the option of restitution.
Similarly, a survey of
5000 adults in Scotland found that 30% favored victim
compensation and 19%
favored community service for theft (Scottish Office, 1996).
Most recently, Doble
and Greene (2000) asked respondents to rate the importance of a
number of
components of reparative boards. The most important element
(rated as being
“very important” by more than 90% of the sample), was making
restitution. This
high level of support for restitution and compensation has been
replicated in several
other jurisdictions, including Great Britain and Holland
(Wright, 1989).
Pranis and Umbreit (1992) report interesting findings from a
survey in which
respondents in Minnesota were asked to imagine that their
homes had been
burglarized and to choose a sentence for the offender (a
recidivist with a previous
conviction for burglary). People had the option of choosing
between imposing

one of two sentences: (i) 4 months probation and 4 months jail,
or (ii) 4 months
probation and repayment of the $1200. Three times as many
respondents chose
repayment over the incarceration of the offender. This finding is
noteworthy be-
cause it shows that the punitive response (imprisonment) carries
little appeal for
the public when placed in direct contrast to the compensatory
alternative.
Community Service
Community service is another reparative sanction that can
achieve a restora-
tive aim (Karp, 2001). Public support for community service
emerges from re-
search that offers respondents a choice between imposing one of
two sanctions,
community service or imprisonment. Doob et al., (1998) report
findings from such
a study. When given a choice, the vast majority of a sample of
Canadians was will-
ing to substitute community work for a period of imprisonment.
For example, when
sentencing an adult offender convicted of a minor assault, 72%
of the sample fa-
vored community service over imprisonment. The appeal of
community service as
a sentencing option is not restricted to developed nations: Sita
and Edanyu (1999)
found that fully 86% of their respondents in Uganda supported
the concept.
A frequent method used to explore public sentencing
preferences involves

providing respondents with a choice between two sanctions, one
that is punitive,
and one that is restorative in nature. Alternatively, respondents
are sometimes
asked to sentence an offender, and if they choose imprisonment,
are then subse-
quently asked if they would find a noncustodial restorative
sanction to be equally
acceptable. The impact of reparation was clear in a study
conducted fully 20
years ago. A representative, national survey of the public in
Canada was asked to
sentence an offender convicted of burglary. Having selected a
particular sentence,
respondents were then asked whether they would prefer to
impose reparation to
the victim or the community. Given this choice, almost two-
thirds of the sample
responded affirmatively (Doob and Roberts, 1988).
In more recent research (in the same country) reported by Tufts
and Roberts
(2002), respondents were asked to sentence juvenile and adult
offenders described
in brief case histories. Respondents who elected to impose a
term of custody
were then asked to consider the acceptability of a substitute
sanction. Specifi-
cally they were asked: “If a judge sentenced the offender to
probation and 200
hours of community work, would that be acceptable?” In
scenarios involving the
offenses of assault and burglary (and first offenders and
recidivists), almost half
the respondents stated that they would find the alternative
(restorative) sanction

acceptable.
Hough and Roberts (2004a) provide additional evidence of the
acceptability
of alternate sanctions. Respondents to a nationwide survey in
Britain were asked to
impose sentence in a number of scenarios involving young
offenders. People who
had “imposed” custody were then asked whether they would
find it acceptable if
the court ordered the offender to “one year of supervision, 200
hours of community
work and to compensate the victims.” Four-fifths of these
respondents indicated
that they would find this alternative sentence to be an
acceptable substitute for im-
prisonment. These findings demonstrate the strong influence of
reparative efforts
upon popular conceptions of appropriate punishments.
Sentencing Juvenile Versus Adult Offenders
Although there is widespread public support for restorative
sanctions, the
public appears to see restorative (rather than retributive)
sanctioning as more
appropriate to juvenile offenders, and in particular juveniles
without previous
adjudications. Attribution theory would predict greater support
for restorative
sanctioning of juvenile compared to adult offenders based on

attributions that
juveniles may have acted as a result of immaturity and peer
pressure; they also have
a greater chance to be reintegrated in the law-abiding society.
For example, Gandy
and Galaway (1980) found that the majority of respondents
believed that juvenile
offenders (compared to adult offenders) were more appropriate
candidates for a
sentence of restitution instead of imprisonment. This finding
also emerges clearly
from responses to various “sweeps” of the British Crime
Survey. For example,
in the 1998 administration, there was more public support for
compensation than
imprisonment in the case of an adult offender convicted of
burglary (Mattinson
and Mirrlees-Black, 2000).
When asked to consider the sentencing of juvenile offenders,
there was
significantly greater support for restorative options. Thus, when
asked to sentence
a 15-year old first-time offender convicted of shoplifting, 43%
endorsed the use
of a restorative caution, 15% a reparation order, and 28% some
other form of
community sentence. Only 3% favored custody (Mattinson and
Mirrlees-Black,
2000). These findings have been replicated in other
jurisdictions. For example, in
the Canadian study in which respondents favoring imprisonment
were asked about
the acceptability of alternate restorative sanctions, support for
these alternatives
was significantly higher when the offender was a juvenile rather

than an adult
(Tufts and Roberts, 2002; see also Doob, 2000).
The Role of Criminal Record
Research based on the British Crime Survey illustrates another
important
variable influencing public support for restorative sentencing
alternatives: the
criminal history of the offender. When the juvenile offender
was described as
having committed the crime for the third time, support for
imprisonment rose to
36% of the sample (from 3% in the first-offender case),
(Mattinson and Mirrlees-
Black, 2000). Similar differentiation between first offenders and
recidivists in
support for restorative sanctions has been apparent even in the
early studies in
the area. Gandy (1978) reported differences between public
reactions to offenders
with or without previous criminal adjudications. This finding
emerges from the
New Zealand focus group research: restorative options were
seen as being less
suitable for recidivists (Belgrave, 1995).
These results underscore another theme in the literature on
public attitudes
to restorative justice that has been replicated across many
studies: consistent

with the predictions of attribution theory, the public perceives
alternative, restora-
tive sanctions to be more appropriate for first offenders than for
recidivists (see
also Bilz, 2002; Tufts and Roberts, 2002). There is an important
qualification to
the generalization that the public sees recidivists as
inappropriate candidates for
restorative initiatives. If the current offense is nonviolent, the
public still view
restorative interventions as appropriate. A Vermont study of
public attitudes is
instructive: significant proportions of respondents endorsed the
use of community
board sentences for a recidivist shoplifter (76% favored use of
community board);
a five-time bad check writer (73%), and even a repeat, unarmed
burglar (66%).
However, even a first-time armed robber was regarded as an
appropriate case for
the community board by only 4% of respondents (Gorczyk and
Perry, 1997). Thus
when first-offender status and crime seriousness are compared,
the latter appears
to be far more important. Gandy (1978) also found that for non-
violent offenses,
the existence of previous convictions made little difference in
terms of support for
reparative sanctions rather than imprisonment. Previous
convictions then, under-
mine the case for a restorative response in the eyes of the
public, but generally
only for violent crimes.
Why restorative justice options seem less appropriate for
recidivist offend-

ers requires further research. It is possible that the public sees
restorative justice
options as aimed at offenders who have yet to become persistent
offenders, and
for whom rehabilitation is more likely. Alternatively, it is
possible that restorative
solutions are perceived as a more lenient sentencing option, and
that repeat of-
fenders have disentitled themselves to this leniency by virtue of
their recidivism.
Attributions of future offending may also play a role: the public
probably regards
persistent offenders as more likely to reoffend, and this may
justify the higher lev-
els of public support for a nonrestorative sentencing option such
as imprisonment.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
What conclusions can we draw from this examination of the
empirical liter-
ature on public opinion and restorative sentencing? First, there
is clearly strong
public support for restorative concepts such as compensation,
restitution, and
community work. This finding emerges from studies in which
people are given a
choice between these options and punitive sentences such as
imprisonment. Sec-
ond, there is particularly strong support for restorative justice
as it pertains to less

serious offenses, juvenile offenders, first offenders, and
recidivists who have not
committed crimes of violence. In addition, there is considerable
public support for
restorative responses to a wide range of offending. However,
when the offense in
question involves violence, particularly sexual violence, the
public’s enthusiasm
for restorative justice options wanes.
What explains the popularity of restorative sentencing options?
The idea that
the offender has made amends to the individual victim or the
larger community
clearly carries considerable popular appeal. Although the issue
awaits the results
of systematic research, it is probable that sympathy for the
victim drives much of
the public interest in compensatory sentencing options. And this
itself may reflect
both a desire on the part of the public to assist victims of crime,
as well as the belief
that by making compensation, the offender is taking an
important step toward his
or her rehabilitation and restoration to the community. Focus
group research has
shown that the public clearly perceives community service to be
serving a dual
purpose. The public believes that community service is
appropriate for young
burglars because it gives them a warning, keeps them out of
prison, and allows
them to repay their debt to society (Russell & Morgan, 2001).
Recent public opinion data from the United Kingdom are
relevant to this point.

Members of the public were asked to rate the effectiveness of
different sentences
at reducing crime. Somewhat surprisingly, perhaps, “offenders
compensating and
making amends” was rated as very effective by 24% of the
sample, approximately
the same percentage that rated “prison and supervision in the
community” as
being very effective (25%). In fact, making amends and
providing compensation
were seen to be more effective than fines, electronic
monitoring, and probation
(Chapman et al., 2002).
This result is consistent with findings from the United States:
Flanagan (1996)
reports the results from a poll in which Americans were asked
to rate the effective-
ness of various alternatives to prison in protecting citizens
against crime. Making
offenders work “so that they can earn money to repay victims”
was seen as being
the most effective option, more effective than jail or fines. Thus
almost 90% of
the sample rated the reparative initiative as being effective,
compared to less than
half who rated prisons or fines in this way (Flanagan, 1996).
Since prisons punish
more than court-ordered reparation, and fines involve a
comparable deprivation, it
is clearly the reparative element of the amends to victims that
attracted respondents.
Gandy’s early research with a sample of American respondents
also casts
light on the appeal of restorative sanctions. Unlike many later

studies, in Gandy’s
survey, respondents could choose from among a number of
reparative options,
including repaying the victim and working for the community.
Gandy (1978) found
that respondents consistently preferred either repaying the
victim or working for
the victim rather than working for the community. Repairing the
harm inflicted
upon the individual carries more appeal than making some more
diffuse gesture
towards a less well-defined community. Clearly, part of the
broad attraction of
reparative, restorative justice springs from the benefit that
accrues to the individual
victim.
The literature on alternative sanctions (including
noncompensatory alterna-
tives to imprisonment such as house arrest) is also relevant to
the question of
why restorative sanctions are important. Restorative sanctions
comprise a sub-
set of alternatives to imprisonment. This raises the question of
whether support
for restorative sanctions is part of a broader support for
alternatives, or whether
the restorative sanctions within alternatives are in part
responsible for the lat-
ter’s popularity. In one representative survey of Canadians
(Angus Reid, 1997),

respondents were asked to state why they supported alternative
sanctions. They
were given a list of possible advantages to consider. The most
popular justification
was “allowing the offender to pay back the victim” (supported
by 69% of the
sample), suggesting that a desire to effect restitution is driving
public support for
alternative sentencing.
Members of the public also appear to believe that community
service and
restitution can keep the community safe: 75% of Americans
indicated that re-
quiring probationers to pay restitution and perform community
service was an
effective way to protect citizens (Maguire & Pastore, 1997).
These trends are
important because they contradict the punitive view of
sentencing ascribed to the
public, according to which punishment should take precedence
over other con-
siderations, including the use of restitution and community
service. Empirical
research should further explore the reasons why the public
supports community
service and compensation to the victim. Are these sentences
attractive because
they attempt to rehabilitate the offender, repair the financial
harm done to the
community and victim, or restore the dignity of the victim? Or,
do they appeal
because they promise public safety through deterring the
offender?
Survey research conducted in Scotland illustrates that the public

may support
community service and restitution for different reasons. Scottish
respondents were
asked to sentence individuals described in detailed cases and
were given eight sen-
tencing options (community service order, pay compensation to
the victim, fine,
probation, prison, deferred sentence, electronic tagging, and
drug treatment and
testing order). In sentencing a first-time-convicted burglar, the
most popular sen-
tence was a community service order (selected by 35%),
followed by paying
compensation to the victim (selected by 29%). When asked to
rate the importance
of various sentencing aims, over 75% rated two sentencing
purposes—making
amends to the victim for the harm done and showing public
disapproval—as ex-
tremely or very important. Fifty-seven percent gave these
ratings to incapacitation,
and 43% to the aim of punishment (Justice 1 Committee, 2002).
This research
demonstrates that the popular support for community service
was primarily for its
restorative benifits.
Although the public may support restorative initiatives most
strongly when
the crime is not particularly serious, many exponents of
restorative justice argue
that it is with respect to the most serious personal injury

offences that the potential
for restoration is greatest (see Braithwaite, 1999). The
expression of mercy and
forgiveness has its most profound effects for the most serious
crimes. However,
research suggests that convincing the public that the “payoff” of
restorative justice
is likely to be greatest for the most serious crimes may well
prove difficult, at least
for the foreseeable future until (and unless) public models of
sentencing evolve
from a retributive to a restorative model.
If public support for restorative sentencing is considerable, why
has this al-
ternative form of sentencing not supplanted more traditional,
retributive models of
justice? We offer two explanations. First, the deep public
support for restorative
concepts such as victim compensation has escaped the attention
of practitioners
and policy-makers. Busy trial judges for example, are unlikely
to have the oppor-
tunity to immerse themselves in the research literature
exploring the public and
the justice system. Second, politicians have also overlooked the
findings of this
literature. This explains why governments in several countries
have attempted to
promote public confidence in criminal justice by passing
punitive sentencing legis-
lation, such as mandatory sentencing laws (see discussion in
Roberts et al., 2003).
The general finding of this review—that the public in different
jurisdictions

supports sentencing initiatives that reflect restorative justice
principles—carries
an important message for policy-makers in the field of criminal
justice with clear
policy implications. People tend to have less confidence in the
criminal justice
system than other public institutions, and within the justice
system, the courts
attract the lowest confidence ratings (see Hough and Roberts,
2004b). Investing in
restorative sentencing options is likely to promote, not diminish
public confidence
in the courts, provided these options are not applied to the most
serious forms of
criminal behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank the following individuals for assistance in
obtaining sur-
veys: Mara Schiff, Trevor Sanders, Peggy Christian, and Grant
Lecky. We also
acknowledge the helpful comments on an earlier draft of this
paper provided by
John Braithwaite, Kathleen Daly, the editor of this journal, and
three anonymous
reviewers.
REFERENCES
Angus Reid (1997). Attitudes to Crime, Angus Reid Group,
Ottawa.
Applegate, B. (1997). Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert,
and public attitudes toward prison
amenities. Am. J. Crim. Justice 25: 253–268.

Bae, I. (1992). A survey on public acceptance of restitution as
an alternative to incarceration for
property offenders in Hennepin County, U.S.A. In Messmer, H.,
and Otto, H.-U. (eds.), Restorative
Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and Potentials of Victim–Offender
Mediation—International Research
Perspective. Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Belgrave, J. (1995). Public attitudes towards restorative justice,
Chap. 4. In Restorative Justice: A
Discussion Paper, Ministry of Justice, Wellington, NZ.
Bilz, K. (2002). Restorative Justice and Victim Offender
Mediation (VOM): A New Area for Social
Psychological Inquiry, Available at:
www.princeton.edu/∼ kbliz/V
Boers, K., and Sessar, K. (1989). Do people really want
punishment? On the relationship between
acceptance of restitution, punishment, and fear of crime. In
Sessar, K., and Kerner, H.-J. (eds.),
Developments in Crime and Crime Control Research, Springer-
Verlag, New York.
Bowers, W. J. (1993). Capital punishment and contemporary
values: People’s misgivings and the
court’s misperceptions. Law Soc. Rev. 27: 157–175.
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration,
Cambridge University Press, Melbourne,
Australia.

Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic
and pessimistic accounts. In Tonry,
M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Carroll, J. S. (1978). Causal attributions in expert parole
decisions. J. Pers. 36: 1501–1511.
Carroll, J. S., and Payne, J. W. (1977). Crime seriousness
recidivism risk, and causal attributions in
judgments of prison terms by students and experts. J. Appl.
Psychol. 62: 595–602.
Chapman, B., Mirrlees-Black, C., and Brawn, C. (2002).
Improving Public Attitudes to the Criminal
Justice System: The Impact of Information, Home Office,
London.
Cullen, F., Fisher, B., and Applegate, B. (2000). Public opinion
about punishment and corrections. In
Tonry, M. (ed.), Crime and Justice, University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Daly, K.(2000). Revisiting the relationship between retributive
and restorative justice. In Strang, H. and
Braithwaite, J. (eds.), Restorative Justice: From Philosophy to
Practice, Dartmouth, Aldershot,
England UK.
Darby, B. W., and Schlenker, B. R. (1989). Children’s reactions
to transgressions: Effects of the actor’s
apology, reputation and remorse. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 28: 353–
364.
Darley, J., Carlsmith, K., and Robinson, P. (2000).

Incapacitation and just deserts as motives for
punishment. Law Hum. Behav. 24: 659–683.
Doble, J. (1994). Crime and Corrections: The Views of the
People of Vermont, John Doble Research
Associates, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Doble, J. (1998). Crime and Corrections: The Views of the
People of New Hampshire, John Doble
Research Associates, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Doble, J., and Greene, J. (2000). Attitudes Towards Crime and
Punishment in Vermont: Public Opinion
About an Experiment With Restorative Justice, John Doble
Research Associates, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Doob, A. N. (2000). Transforming the punishment environment:
Understanding public views of what
should be accomplished at sentencing. Can. J. Criminol. 42:
323–340.
Doob. A. N., and Marinos, V. (1995). Reconceptualizing
punishment: Understanding the limita-
tions on the use of intermediate punishments. Univ. Chicago
Law Sch. Roundtable 2: 413–
433.
Doob, A. N., and Roberts, J. V. (1988) Public punitiveness and
public knowledge of the facts: Some
canadian surveys. In Walker, N., and Hough, M. (eds.), Public
Attitudes to Sentencing, Cambridge
Studies in Criminology, LIX, Gower, Aldershot, England, UK.
Doob, A. N., Sprott, J., Marinos, V., and Varma, K. (1998) An
Exploration of Ontario Residents’ Views

of Crime and the Criminal Justice System, Center of
Criminology, Toronto.
Finchman, F. D., and Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of
responsibility: From man-the-scientist to
man-as-lawyer. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic
Press, New York.
Finkel, N. J. (2000). But it’s not fair: Commonsense notions of
unfairness. Psychol. Public Policy Law
6: 898–952.
Flanagan, T. (1996). Community corrections in the public mind.
Federal Probation 6: 3–9.
Galaway, B. (1984). A survey of public acceptance of
restitution as an alternative to imprisonment for
property offenders. Aust. N. Z. J. Criminol. 17: 108–116.
Gandy, J. (1978). Attitudes toward the use of restitution. In
Hudson, J., and Galaway, B. (eds.), Offender
Restitution in Theory and Action, Lexington Books, Lexington,
MA.
Gandy, J., and Galaway, B. (1980). Restitution as a sanction for
offenders: A public’s view. In Hudson,
J., and Galaway, B. (eds.), Victims, Offenders, and Alternative
Sanctions, Lexington Books,
Lexington, MA.
Gebotys, R., and Roberts, J. (1987). Public views of sentencing:

The role of offender characteristics.
Can. J. Behav. Sci. 19: 479–488.
Gorczyk, J., and Perry, J. (1997). What the public wants.
Market research finds support for restorative
justice. Corrections Today 59: 78–83.
Harrel, W. A. (1981). The effects of alcohol use and offender
remorsefulness on sentencing decisions.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 11: 83–91.
Hart, H. L. A., and Honore, A. M. (1959). Causation in the Law,
Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.
Heider, E. (1958). The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations,
Wiley, New York.
Hommers, W. (1988). The effects of apology and third-party
compensation on punishments imposed
for two kinds of damages. Z. Sozialpsychol. 19: 139–151.
Hommers, W., and Endres, J. (1991). The effects of apology on
interrelated judgments concerning
restitution and punishment. Z. Exp. Andgewandte Psychol. 36:
433–452.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (1998). Attitudes to Punishment:
Findings From the British Crime
Survey, Home Office Research Study 179, Home Office,
London.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (2004a). Youth Crime and
Justice: An Analysis of Public Opinion in
Great Britain, Kings College, Institute for Criminal Policy
Research, London.
Hough, M., and Roberts, J. V. (2004b). Public Confidence in
Criminal Justice: An International Review,

King’s College, Institute for Criminal Policy Research, London.
Hudson, J. (1992). A review of research dealing with views on
financial restitution. In Messmer,
H., and Otto, H. (eds), Restorative Justice on Trial: Pitfalls and
Potentials of Victim-Offender
Mediation—International Research Perspectives, Kluwer
Academic, Boston, MA.
Justice 1 Committee (2002). Public Attitudes Towards
Sentencing and Alternatives to Imprisonment,
Available at: www.scottish.parliament.uk/official report/cttee/
Karp, D. R. (2001). Harm and repair: Observing restorative
justice in Vermont. Justice Q. 18: 727–757.
Kleinke, C. L., Wallis, R., and Stalder, K. (1992). Evaluation of
a rapist as a function of expressed
intent and remorse. J. Soc. Psychol. 132: 525–537.
Landy, D., and Aronson, E. (1969). The influenc e of the
character of the criminal and his victim on
the decisions of simulated jurors. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 5: 141–
152.
Lee, A. (1996). Public attitudes toward restorative justice. In
Galaway, B., and Hudson, J. (eds.),
Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Criminal Justice
Press, Monsey, NY.
Lind, E. A. (1995). Social Conflict and Social Justice: Lessons
From the Social Psychology of Justice
Judgments, Available at:
http://www.duke.edu/∼alind/INAUG.html
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology of

Procedural Justice, Plenum Press,
New York.
Lurigio, A. J., Carroll, J. S., and Stalans, L. J. (1994).
Understanding judges’ sentencing decisions:
Attributions of responsibility and story construction. In Heath,
L., Tindale, S., Edwards, J.,
Posavac, E., Bryant, F., Henderson-King, E., Suarez-Balcazar,
Y., and Myers, J., (eds.), Applica-
tions of Heuristics and Biases to Social Issues, Vol. 3, Plenum
Press, New York.
Lussier, R., Perlman, D., and Breen, L. (1977). Causal
attributions, attitude similarity, and the punish-
ment of drug offenders. Br. J. Addict. 72: 357–364.
Maguire, K., and Pastore, A. L. (1997). Sourcebook of Criminal
Justice Statistics, United States
Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
Mattinson, J., and Mirrlees-Black, C. (2000). Attitudes to Crime
and Criminal Justice: Findings From
the 1998 British Crime Survey, Home Office, London.
McCold, P. (1996). Restorative Justice and the role of the
community. In Galaway, B., and Hudson, J.
(eds.), Restorative Justice: International Perspectives, Criminal
Justice Press, Monsey, NY.
McFatter, R. (1978). Sentencing strategies and justice: Effects
of punishment philosophy on sentencing
decisions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 36: 1490–1500.
McGarrell, E. F., and Sandys, M. (1996). The misperception of
public opinion toward capital pun-

ishment: Examining the spuriousness explanation of death
penalty support. Am. Behav. Sci. 39:
500–513.
McGillis, D. (1978). Attribution and the law: Convergence
between legal psychological concepts. Law
Hum. Behav. 2: 289–300.
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., and Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as
aggression control: Its role in mediating
appraisal of and response to harm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56:
219–227.
Pranis, K., and Umbreit, M. (1992). Public Opinion Research
Challenges Perception of Widespread
Public Demand for Harsh Punishment, Citizens’ Council,
Minneapolis.
Roberts, J. V. (1988). Public Opinion and Sentencing: The
Surveys of the Canadian Sentencing
Commission, Department of Justice Canada, Ottawa.
Roberts, J. V. (2003). Public opinion and mandatory sentences
of imprisonment: A review of interna-
tional findings. Crim. Justice Behav. 20: 1–26.
Roberts, J. V., and Stalans, L. (1997). Public Opinion, Crime,
and Criminal Justice, Westview Press,
Boulder.
Roberts, J. V., Stalans, L. S., Indermaur, D., and Hough, M.
(2003). Penal Populism and Public Opinion.

Lessons from Five Countries, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Robinson, D. T., Smith-Lovin, L., and Tsoudis, O. (1994).
Heinous crime or unfortunate accident?
The effects of remorse on responses to mock criminal
confessions. Soc. Forces 73: 175–190.
Rossi, P., Simpson, J., and Miller, J. (1985). Beyond Crime
Seriousness: Fitting the punishment to the
crime. J. Quant. Criminol. 1: 59–90.
Russell, N., and Morgan, R. (2001). Sentencing of Domestic
Burglary, Sentencing Advisory Panel,
Available at: www.sentencing-advisory-
panel.gov.uk/research/page 01.html
Scher, S. J., and Darley, J. M. (1997). How effective are the
things people say to apologize? Effects of
the realization of the apology speech act. J. Psycholinguist. Res.
26: 127–140.
Scottish Office (1996). Detailed Analysis of the 1996 Scottish
Crime Survey Published Today, Available
at: www.scotland.gov.uk/news/release98 2/pr1841.htm
Sessar, K. (1999). Punitive attitudes of the public: Reality and
myth. In Bazemore, G., and Walgrave, L.
(eds.), Restorative Juvenile Justice: Repairing the Harm of
Youth Crime, Criminal Justice Press,
Monsey, NY.
Shaw, S. (1982). The People’s Justice: A Major Poll of Public
Attitudes on Crime and Punishment,
Prison Reform Trust, London.
Sherman, L. (2002). Trust and confidence in criminal justice.

Natl. Inst. Justice J. 248: 22–31.
Sita, N., and Edanyu, G. (1999). Awareness and Attitude of the
Public Towards Community Service,
Interim National Committee on Community Service, Available
at: www.restorativejustice.org
Tonry, M. (2001). Symbol, substance, and severity in western
penal policies. Punishment Soc. 3:
517–536.
Tufts, J., and Roberts, J. V. (2002). Sentencing juvenile
offenders: Comparing public preferences and
judicial practice. Crim. Just. Policy Rev. 13: 46–64.
Van Ness, D, and Strong, K. (2002). Restoring Justice,
Anderson Publishing, Cincinnati, OH.
von Hirsch, A. (1993). Censure and Sanctions, Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
von Hirsch, A., Roberts, J. V., Bottoms, A. E., Roach, K., and
Schiff, M. (eds.) (2003). Restorative
and Criminal Justice, Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Walgrave, L. (ed.) (2002). Restorative Justice and the Law,
Willan Publishing, Cullompton.
Walgrave, L., and Geudens, H. (1997). The restorative
proportionality of community service for
juveniles. Eur. J. Crime Crim. Law Crim Justice 4: 361–380.
Wright, M. (1989). What the public wants. In Wright, M., and
Galaway, B. (eds.), Mediation and
Criminal Justice. Victims, Offenders and Community, Sage,
London.

Trauma-Informed Juvenile Justice Systems: A Systematic
Review of
Definitions and Core Components
Christopher Edward Branson
New York University School of Medicine
Carly Lyn Baetz
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Sarah McCue Horwitz and Kimberly Eaton Hoagwood
New York University School of Medicine
Objective: The U.S. Department of Justice has called for the
creation of trauma-informed juvenile justice
systems in order to combat the negative impact of trauma on
youth offenders and frontline staff.
Definitions of trauma-informed care have been proposed for
various service systems, yet there is not
currently a widely accepted definition for juvenile justice. The
current systematic review examined
published definitions of a trauma-informed juvenile justice
system in an effort to identify the most
commonly named core elements and specific interventions or
policies. Method: A systematic literature
search was conducted in 10 databases to identify publications
that defined trauma-informed care or
recommended specific practices or policies for the juvenile
justice system. Results: We reviewed 950
unique records, of which 10 met criteria for inclusion. The 10
publications included 71 different
recommended interventions or policies that reflected 10 core
domains of trauma-informed practice. We

found 8 specific practice or policy recommendations with
relative consensus, including staff training on
trauma and trauma-specific treatment, while most
recommendations were included in 2 or less defini-
tions. Conclusion: The extant literature offers relative
consensus around the core domains of a trauma-
informed juvenile justice system, but much less agreement on
the specific practices and policies. A
logical next step is a review of the empirical research to
determine which practices or policies produce
positive impacts on outcomes for youth, staff, and the broader
agency environment, which will help
refine the core definitional elements that comprise a unified
theory of trauma-informed practice for
juvenile justice.
Keywords: juvenile justice, adolescents, trauma-informed,
trauma responsive, traumatic stress
Childhood exposure to violence and other traumatic events is
increasingly recognized as a major public health challenge
because
of its association with a host of deleterious long-term outcomes
(National Prevention Council, 2011). Although the majority of
Americans will experience at least one traumatic event before
the
age of 18 (McLaughlin et al., 2012), trauma disproportionately
affects youth involved with the juvenile justice system (Miller,
Green, Fettes, & Aarons, 2011). An estimated 70% to 90% of
youth offenders have experienced one or more types of trauma,
including high rates of physical or sexual abuse, witnessing do-
mestic violence, and exposure to violence in school or the com-
munity (Abram et al., 2004; Ford, Hartman, Hawke, &
Chapman,
2008). Accumulating evidence suggests that childhood trauma

Find what you need in Joint Commission The Source Cli

Find what you need in Joint Commission The Source Cli

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from ShainaBoling829

More from ShainaBoling829 (20)

Find what you need in Joint Commission The Source Cli