restorative justice


Published on

As part of our Offender Management module

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

restorative justice

  1. 1. House keeping We would like to thank every one for attending the presentation today. Before we begin I would just like to high light some house rules: Please can you either turn your phone off or place it on silent. If a toilet break is needed, they are down the corridor to your right A fire drill has not been arranged today but in the event of a fire, please vacate the room to your left and go down the stairs following signs to safety point outside in the car park.
  2. 2. Aims and Objectives The aim of this presentation is to give an understanding of what and how Restorative Justice works. To do this there are 8 key Questions 1. Define – what it is 2. How does it work 3. What‘s the thinking behind RJ 4. What theories support its application 5. What are the claims made about its capacity to reduce re offending? 6. What are the skills required to successfully achieve victimoffender mediation? 7. What are the challenges and dilemmas involved in delivering victim mediation and RJ work? 8. Your own observations
  3. 3. What is Restorative Justice? O Restorative justice is where the parties with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal with the aftermath of the offence and its implications for the future (Marshall, 1996, pg37)
  4. 4. Restorative Justice Continued O The aim of which is to discuss the crime and the harm caused as well as how this might be put right. O It involves bringing together a victim and his or her offender at a meeting facilitated by a mediator.
  5. 5. The Principles of Restorative Jusice O 1. Justice requires that we work to restore those who have been injured. O 2.Those most directly involved and affected by the crime should have the opportunity to participate fully in the response if they wish. O 3.Government‘s role is to preserve a just public order, and the community's is to build and maintain a just peace.
  6. 6. The Key Values of Restorative Justice O They are four key values O Encounter-To create opportunities for victims, offenders and community members who want to meet to discuss the crime and its aftermath. O Amends-To expect offenders to take steps to repair the harm they have caused. O Reintegration-To restore victims and offenders to a whole, contributing members of society. O Inclusion-To provide opportunities for the parties with a stake in a specific crime to participate in its resolution.
  7. 7. Programmes identified with Restorative Justice O Victim-Offender mediation O Conferencing O Circles O Victim Assistance O Ex-offender Assistance O Restitution O Community Service
  8. 8. Aims of the Programmes O Identifying and taking steps to repair harm. O Involving all stakeholders. O Transforming the traditional relationship between communities and their governments in responding to crime.
  9. 9. Victim Offender Mediation O Victim Offender Mediation concerns mediating between victims of crime and or their families and the offenders who committed the crime against the victim, such cases have involved issues relating to theft, manslaughter, assault, murder, robbery, affray, public order offences, death by dangerous driving, threats to kill, deception, fraud, burglary, indecent assault and rape. O Victim / Offender Mediation is a recognised safe and effective way for victims and their offenders to make contact through a Mediator. This contact may take various forms, from giving and receiving of information, to an actual face - to - face meeting. O Independent : The mediator is locally based and provides Victim/Offender mediation completely independent of the courts, the police or any other agency. O Confidential: Any discussions involving mediation will be conducted in private with total confidentiality. (CMS, Online, 2013)
  10. 10. Restorative Conferencing A restorative conference is a structured meeting between offenders, victims and both parties‘ family and friends, in which they deal with the consequences of the crime or wrongdoing and decide how best to repair the harm. Neither a counselling nor a mediation process, conferencing is a victimsensitive, straightforward problem-solving method that demonstrates how citizens can resolve their own problems when provided with a constructive forum to do so (O‘Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999).
  11. 11. Restorative Conferences Continued O Conferences provide victims and others with an opportunity to confront the offender, express their feelings, ask questions and have a say in the outcome. Offenders hear first hand how their behaviour has affected people. Offenders may choose to participate in a conference and begin to repair the harm they have caused by apologizing, making amends and agreeing to financial restitution or personal or community service work. Conferences hold offenders accountable while providing them with an opportunity to discard the ―offender‖ label and be reintegrated into their community, school or workplace (Morris & Maxwell, 2001).
  12. 12. Restorative Conferences Continued O Participation in conferences is voluntary. After it is determined that a conference is appropriate and offenders and victims have agreed to attend, the conference facilitator invites others affected by the incident—the family and friends of victims and offenders (O‘Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999). O A restorative conference can be used in lieu of traditional disciplinary or justice processes, or where that is not appropriate, as a supplement to those processes (O‘Connell, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 1999).
  13. 13. Restorative Circles O A Restorative Circle is a community process for supporting those in conflict. It brings together the three parties to a conflict – those who have acted, those directly impacted and the wider community – within an intentional systemic context, to dialogue as equals. Participants invite each other and attend voluntarily. The dialogue process used is shared openly with all participants, and guided by a community member. The process ends when actions have been found that bring mutual benefit. O Restorative Circles are facilitated in 3 stages designed to identity the key factors in the conflict, reach agreements on next steps, and evaluate the results. As a circle form, they invite shared power, mutual understanding, self-responsibility and effective action. (Restorative Circles, Online,2013)
  14. 14. The thinking behind Restorative Justice O Restorative practices has its roots in restorative justice, a way of looking at criminal justice that emphasizes repairing the harm done to people and relationships rather than only punishing offenders (Zehr, 1990). O In the modern context, restorative justice originated in the 1970s as mediation or reconciliation between victims and offenders. In 1974 Mark Yantzi, a probation officer, arranged for two teenagers to meet directly with their victims following a vandalism spree and agree to restitution. The positive response by the victims led to the first victim-offender reconciliation program, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with the support of the Mennonite Central Committee and collaboration with the local probation department (McCold, 1999; Peachey, 1989). The concept subsequently acquired various names, such as victim-offender mediation and victim-offender dialogue as it spread through North America and to Europe through the 1980s and 1990s (Office of Victims of Crime, 1998).
  15. 15. What’s the thinking behind Restorative Justice? O Restorative justice echoes ancient and indigenous practices employed in cultures all over the world, from Native American and First Nation Canadian to African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab and many others (Eagle, 2001; Goldstein, 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & Skelton, 2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujanavong, 2005; Wong, 2005). O Eventually modern restorative justice broadened to include communities of care as well, with victims‘ and offenders‘ families and friends participating in collaborative processes called conferences and circles. Conferencing addresses power imbalances between the victim and offender by including additional supporters (McCold, 1999).
  16. 16. The thinking behind Restorative Justice O Restorative Justice service mandate The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, was the first attempt to introduce widespread use of Restorative Justice into criminal justice processing in England and Wales at a moment when legislative action was focused on the prevention of offending by young people. The use of Reparation Orders was introduced by the same Act. O The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999, introduced an extension in the use of Restorative Justice to young people who offend through the device of Referral Orders for Juvenile Offenders pleading guilty in court for the first time. The YOTs had primary responsibility for developing the interventions in support of the Reparation Order, partly on their own and partly via liaison with other statutory or community-based organisations. Much of the effort here was focused on consulting with and supporting victims of youth offending.
  17. 17. The thinking behind Restorative Justice O Restorative justice gives victims answers to their questions, and offenders the chance to make amends. O Restorative justice has been shown to deliver 85% victim satisfaction for victims who choose to participate; and reduces the frequency of re-offending by 14% according to the latest MoJ evidence. O Restorative justice is not designed to replace criminal justice proceedings - although for more minor offences it can be used as an alternative - but alongside and integrated with criminal justice it can deliver benefits that traditional criminal justice on it's own cannot. O Restorative justice holds offenders to account, directly and personally, gives them an insight into the real impact of their behaviour, and an opportunity to make amends. Restorative justice gives victims the chance to have their say, to get answers to their questions, to receive an apology and move on with their lives. (Restorative Justice, Online, 2013)
  18. 18. The theories behind Restorative Justice O 1. Reversal of moral disengagement O 2. Social and moral development O 3. Emotional and moral psychological healing O 4. Reintergrative shaming
  19. 19. Moral-psychological theory Moral-psychological theory - concerned with the psychology of a person in relation to moral matters - someone engages in activities which are harmful to others, they will tend to silence their conscience by means of various internal. O Psychological mechanisms of disengagement. • Rationalisations about good consequences which are imagined to outweigh the bad ones (moral justification). (‗If I make enough money on this, I can later help others.‘) • Obscuring or otherwise lessening personal responsibility for the wrongful activity. (‗It wasn‘t my fault. I just did what I was told;‘ ‗I played only a small part in it;‘ ‗Others do it, why can‘t I?‘) • Denial of the seriousness of the harmful effects on others. (‗They won‘t mind;‘ ‗They will be fine;‘ ‗It‘s only a few bits and pieces (TV, stereo, jewellery, etc.), and they can claim it on insurance.‘) • Blaming, dehumanising, or otherwise derogating the victim. (‗Foolish folk. Should not have left the window open;‘ ‗Stupid man. He tried to be a hero;‘ ‗He was a b**ard;‘ ‗She was a b*ch;‘ ‗Serves them right. They should not have …‘) This can happen to both offender and victim.. by using restorative justice meetings as a form of disengagement method. Often barriers can be broken down and challenged.
  20. 20. Emotional and moral psychological healing. O Emotional and moral psychological healing. • Material and symbolic reparation - The process of material reparation results in a final settlement between offender and victim and typically consists of specific agreements about compensating the victim, community service, etc. The process of symbolic reparation is less visible. It is composed of gestures and expressions of courtesy, respect, remorse, and forgiveness. • Reparation is what we give to victims to help them overcome damage they have suffered, to improve their way of life, however not everyone is the same and we have to understand that as far as the victim is concerned, this can only happen with time and the correct amount of care and attention. • For example: It is important that the offender shows remorse and truthfulness within their apology as it helps the victim to accept and move forward. • Material reparation works towards repairing the harm caused by the offender and it compensates for the damage associated with that harm, such as the medical costs ect. This often takes form of financial payments
  21. 21. Social and moral development. O Social and moral development. • Despite this, it is highlighted that victims are not expected to forgive the offender, however if such a process is correctly performed and maintained, it is hopeful that this process would benefit towards the forgiveness by the victims. • Looking back to childhood, we are reminded that good behavior is rewarded with incentives and that punishment deferrers bad behavior. Learning from our mistakes as well as those around us, is a key aspect to development, socially and morally. • This type of method works particularly well with young offenders especially when they can see the extent of harm to the people around them, this includes the offender and victim family. Offender meetings offer a huge insight to the views and opinions of others close to both the victim and the offender, for instance why the offenders behavior is wrong and why it wont be tolerated. Following this, it is important to then focus on repairing the harm done.
  22. 22. Reintegrative shaming – offender focused. O Reintegrative shaming – offender focused. • Shaming happens when the person‘s behaviour is condemned but their self-esteem and confidence are upheld through positive comments about them and gestures of forgiveness and (re-)acceptance. O John Braithwaite –―Crime is best controlled when members of the community are the primary controllers through active participation in shaming offenders, and, having shamed them, through concerted participation in ways of reintegrating the offender back into the community of law abiding citizens…” O For example, if we take a look at a family that has a strong bonding relationship where shaming and punishment are only used when necessary, the relationships still maintain a high level of respect between them. O It is considered to be highly successful within victim, offender restorative meetings, particularly when offender family members are present as it brings a realization of what they have done, to who they are. However despite being a successful method within victim/offender meetings, there is little to suggest this method contributes towards the restoration and healing of victims. O Secondly, as rare as it happens, sometimes the intergrative shaming can cause the reverse effect and leave the offender feeling humiliated and shamed upon by everyone. The key to a positive outcome is to then reinforce encouragement and self confidence by positive and reassuring comments forwarded by the offender supporters. • Misconception of the word ―shaming‖ as it implies that the offender is shamed and humiliated. It has a sense of an unfair process.
  23. 23. What are the claims made about its capacity to reduce reoffending? Research commissioned by the UK Government, which was undertaken between 2004 and 2008 by a team headed by Professor Joanna Shapland at the University of Sheffield, showed that 77% of victims offered an RJ session took the opportunity. Offender participation rates were similarly high. Another research project, led by criminologists Professor Lawrence Sherman and Dr Heather Strang found that 27% fewer crimes were committed by offenders after they‘d taken part in an RJ conference than those offenders who did not. 33% of offenders leaving prison are less likely to reoffend after RJ. 55% of those who have had non-custodial punishments are less likely to reoffend after RJ.
  24. 24. Continued O The Government trials showed that 85% of victims were satisfied with the process and 72% would recommend it to others. O The trials showed that through bringing about reductions in reoffending , RJ saved the Criminal Justice System nine times what it cost to deliver. In other words, for every £100 of tax payers‘ money spent on setting up RJ sessions, £800 is saved on court time, legal representation, prison costs and rehabilitation on a subsequent offence committed by the offender who took part. O Ministry of Justice figures show that 49% of adults released from prison are reconvicted within a year. 72% of under 18s released from custody in 2008 reoffended within a year. O According to the National Audit Office, reoffending by ex-prisoners cost the economy over £9.5 billion between the years 2007 and 2008. (WhyMe.Org, 2013)
  25. 25. New Zealand Court-Referred Restorative Justice Pilot: Evaluation O Over two - thirds of the offenders were not reconvicted within 12 months of their court-referred restorative justice conference. The actual reconviction rate of the conferenced offenders (32 per cent) was significantly lower than the average rate for the ten matched comparison groups (36 per cent). O Offenders with the following characteristics who attended a conference had significantly lower actual reconviction rates relative to the same types of offenders from the comparison groups: • violent offenders; • traffic offenders (driving causing death or injury); • theft/other offenders (i.e. all offenders other than fraud and burglary offenders); • offenders with one or two previous proved cases; • males; • offenders aged 25 to 29 years or 30 to 39 years; • and, medium and high-risk offenders (i.e. offenders with predicted reconviction rate of 25 per cent or more).
  26. 26. Mediating Criminal Domestic Violence Cases: O Results of the study found that for defendants without previous criminal convictions, the fraction of court cases that are re-charged (6/16) is clearly different from the fraction of mediated cases that are re-charged (2/55) to an extent that cannot be explained by random variation (p-value = 0.0025). The difference between court and mediation for defendants with previous criminal convictions is too large to be easily explained by random variation. O Although cases were not assigned to mediation on a random basis, it appears from the study that mediation had a significant effect in reducing repeat offenses. The effect was greatest when the defendant did not have any previous convictions and the parties lived together. Even where cases a defendant had previous convictions, the data shows mediation has an effect on reducing recidivism. The seriousness of the assaults is not known and it may well be that the courts have a higher levels of violence. Although, one of the mediated cases had an assault with a deadly weapon charge so this may not necessarily be so.
  27. 27. Evaluating conferencing for serious Juvenile Offenders O This study was of a conferencing project in Belgium for juvenile offenders who had committed either a serious offence or a series of crimes. The New Zealand model of conferencing was used in the project. O The recidivism of the juveniles was assessed through examination of court files six to eighteen months after either the referral to the conference O There was no control group in this study. O 78 per cent of the juveniles who took part in the conference had no new crimes recorded in the judicial files compared to 22 per cent who were not involved in conferences. O It is also worth noting that most of the juveniles involved in conferences who did reoffend did not commit crimes for several months and, when they did, the crimes were of a less serious nature than the crime(s) for which they were referred to a conference.
  28. 28. Essex Family Group Conferencing Project O The authors collected qualitative and quantitative data from 30 family group conferences, convened to address offences committed by young people considered to be in the top 20 per cent receiving services from YOTs, with regard to seriousness of offending. Reoffending rates were 31.6 per cent for the year one sample (2000) and 7.1 per cent for year two (2001). This was measured at least three, and up to seventeen months after the conference (Bowes, 2003).
  29. 29. What are the skills required to successfully achieve victim-offender mediation? O Victim and Offender mediation has been shown to reduce the risk of re-offending, and helps the victim move on in life. Mediation is an extremely effective way of empowering victims and also helps the Offender to see the damage that they are doing to people, thereby encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions. O For Victim – Offender mediation to take place, it needs a neutral party in place as mediator who will be selected by the Mediation service selected for the task by the police, solicitor etc. O Skills a mediator need to possess will be a non-judgemental or non-bias attitude, towards both the perpetrator and victim. They need to have the ability to create a rapor between perpetrator and victim so they feel like they make amends surrounding their issues. The mediator will be trained to notice uncomfortable body language, have an ability to give both the perpetrator and victim benefits for being at the meeting and help to find a solution matching both parties. O A safe, comfortable environment needs to be created so all parties feel secure to complete the mediation but always the knowledge of any mediation session is in the strictest confidence.
  30. 30. What are the challenges and dilemmas involved in delivering victim mediation and RJ work? • Victims of crime and Mediation • Offenders and Mediation • Offender led Mediation • Victim led Mediation • Benefits for Victims • Benefits for Offenders • Benefits to a Community • Benefits to the Justice System
  31. 31. Victims of crime and Mediation O Being a victim of crime can be a traumatic experience; feelings of violation, anger, numbness and a sense of bereavement are all normal. Not all victims react in the same way, everyone is an individual. Mediation offers victims the chance to tell the person who - committed the crime against them exactly how they feel. Very often there are a lot of questions that victims need answers to. Common questions are: Why Me? What did you do with my property? Do you realise how I've been affected by this crime? Mediation can and does help get answers to these questions. If the victim and offender live in the same community, the victim may feel apprehensive. Mediation can address all these issues.
  32. 32. Offenders and Mediation O Some offenders do feel genuinely sorry for their crimes and need to apologise to their victims as part of their wish to make amends. Mediation gives the offender the opportunity of explaining to their victims how and why they committed the crime. O If the offender and their victims live in the same area they may feel apprehensive of becoming a target for revenge or ostracism by the victim, members of the victim's family or the community at large. Mediation can address all of these issues and can also go some way in making our community a better place in which to live.
  33. 33. Offender led Mediation O Following an admission of guilt the mediator will interview the offender in order to determine the level of remorse and the mediator will also discuss with the offender what is expected if they engage in the process. If the mediator is satisfied and the offender agrees, an approach will then be made to the victim. O If the victim declines to take part in the mediation process then the offender is informed that no further action is to be taken.
  34. 34. Victim led Mediation O The mediator will assess the victims suitability, needs and motives for wishing to engage in the mediation process before any attempt is made to locate the offender (It is important that the victim's expectations of the mediation process are not unrealistic). O If the offender can be traced, the mediator will seek their views on entering into the mediation process. If the offender cannot be traced or declines mediation then the victim is informed and no further action is taken.
  35. 35. Benefits for Victims O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Have the offender right the wrong, in whatever way is possible and valuable to the victim Opportunity to confront the offender with the real human impact of the offense; express thoughts and feelings directly to the offender Find out what the offender is like Get answers to questions that only the offender can answer (Why did you do this to me? How did you get into my house? Were you watching me? Is there anything that I did to cause this? Is there anything I could have done to prevent this?) Allay fears (often exaggerated) about the offender (Will he come back? What kind of a monster would do a thing like this to me? Am I in danger?) Opportunity to ask for/receive an apology Opportunity to be seen as a person, instead of an object or a target Become empowered as a primary and valued participant in the resolution of the offense, instead of being left out or viewed as a nuisance, as commonly occurs in the traditional juvenile and criminal justice processes Hold the offender personally accountable to the victim Help determine what restitution or other restoration the offender will provide and obtain it in a form that is personal and meaningful to the victim Greatly increase (4 times more likely, according to research) the chance that restitution will actually be paid Opportunity to have a personal impact on the crime problem by decreasing the likelihood that this offender will re-offend May avoid the need to appear in court/typically takes fewer weeks, months or even years Opportunity to feel that justice has been done Obtain the closure that brings peace of mind
  36. 36. Benefits for Offenders O Opportunity to make amends and meaningfully right the wrong, rather than just be punished O Chance to offer an apology or an explanation O Opportunity to truly understand the real human consequences of the offense O Opportunity to be seen as a person, rather than a monster or a criminal O Opportunity to participate in deciding what restitution/restoration will be given to the victim and negotiate a restitution agreement that is reasonable and do-able O In appropriate cases where the offender is not dangerous to the community (first offenses, minor offenses), the unique opportunity to avoid prosecution, a juvenile/criminal record or incarceration, by righting the wrong to the victim instead O Opportunity to restore self-image as a good person and a competent person
  37. 37. Benefits to a Community O Lessen the impacts of crime on the community by increasing restoration of losses O Reduce the incidence of repeat crime by making offenders understand how they have hurt someone O Increase the experience of justice in the community O Reduce the impacts of incarceration on the community, i.e., locking up parents and breadwinners; offenders who return to the community having received an education in crime while incarcerated O In situations where the offense is part of an ongoing interpersonal conflict or where the victim and offender are likely to come in contact in the future, provide a framework for maintaining peace in the community O By training volunteers to resolve offenses, overcome feelings of impotence and empower the community to have a direct impact on its crime problem, rather than looking solely to governments for problem-solving O Trained volunteers take new skills in appropriate dispute resolution back to benefit neighborhoods and the community as a whole, in a wide variety of settings in which they interact.
  38. 38. Benefits to the Justice System O Meet the needs of crime victims and increase their sense of justice and satisfaction with the juvenile/criminal justice system O Increase the public's experience of justice and increase public satisfaction with the juvenile/criminal justice system O Greatly decrease the time generally required to process offenses in the traditional adversarial manner O Greatly decrease the expense of processing offenses in the traditional manner by leveraging services from trained volunteers O Reduce incarceration costs by substituting creative alternatives for offenders who are not dangerous and can usefully contribute to the community and the victim O Reduce court dockets, reduce the caseloads of juvenile courts, prosecutors, public defenders, corrections officers, and reduce the volume of police calls, making these resources more available for the cases that most need them O Increase the community's understanding and ownership of the criminal/juvenile justice process, as a result of victim and volunteer involvement
  39. 39. Observations The observations from Restorative Justice are: O It can give the victims of a crime the answers they need therefore giving them closure. O It can give the offender a chance to apologise for their actions and see the consequences of their actions. O From case studies Restorative Justice helps to reduce the reoffending of offenders.
  40. 40. Bibliography Books O O O O O O O O O O O Eagle, H. (2001, November). Restorative justice in native cultures. State of Justice 3. A periodic publication of Friends Committee on Restorative Justice. Goldstein, A. (2006, October). Restorative practices in Israel: The state of the field. Paper presented at the Eighth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Bethlehem, PA, USA. Haarala, L. (2004). A community within. In Restorative Justice Week: Engaging Us All in the Dialogue. Ottawa, ON, Canada:. Correctional Service of Canada. Mbambo, B., & Skelton, A. (2003). Preparing the South African community for implementing a new restorative child justice system. In L. Walgrave, (Ed.), Repositioning Restorative Justice. (pp. 271283). Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. McCold, P. (1999, August). Restorative justice practice—The state of the field. Paper presented at Building Strong Partnerships for Restorative Practices Conference, Burlington, VT, USA. Morris, A., & Maxwell, G. (2001). Restorative conferencing. In Bazemore, G. and Schiff, M. (Ed.), Restorative Community justice: Repairing Harm and Transforming Communities (pp. 173-197). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Co. O‘Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. (1999). Conferencing Handbook. Pipersville, PA: The Piper‘s Press. Peachey, D. (1989). The Kitchener experiment. In M. Wright and B. Galaway (Eds.), Mediation and Criminal Justice. Victims, Offenders and Community. London, UK: Sage. Roujanavong, W. (2005, November). Restorative justice: Family and community group conferencing (FCGC) in Thailand. Paper presented at the Seventh International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Manchester, UK. Wong, D. (2005) Restorative justice for juveniles in Hong Kong: Reflections of a practitioner. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, NSW, Australia. Zehr, H. (1990). Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
  41. 41. Bibliography Websites O O O O O O The Office of Social Justice (1996-2013) Issues Restorative Justice, Accessed( 28th April 2013), Retrieved from Restorative Justice Organisation (2010) Restorative Justice in Criminal Justice, Accessed (28th April 2013), Retrieved tice/#.UX1dcqtwbIU Central Mediation Services,(1994), Victim Offender Mediation, Accessed 28th April 2013, Retrieved Restorative Justice Online (2009) Restorative Conferencing, Accessed 28th April 2013, Retrieved Mirsky, L. (2004, April & May). Restorative justice practices of Native American, First Nation and other indigenous people of North America: Parts One & Two. Restorative Practices eForum. Retreived from Office for Victims of Crime (1998). Recovered from U.S. Government website. National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Retrieved from