Enhancing Punishment or Repairing Harms? Perceptions of Sentencing Hate Crimes Amongst Members of a Commonly Targeted Victim Group

Domestic violence, and specifically, violence against intimate partners, has generated a large research literature in the last few decades, particularly in the area of policy and community response and intervention. However, less attention has been given to the use of more innovative approaches in such situations, namely the use of restorative justice (RJ) interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV). The aim of this review is to provide a general overview of how RJ approaches have been utilized in the context of IPV, systematically examine the available literature on RJ approaches to IPV, describe the interventions that have been developed and empirically tested, and synthesize the findings. This review summarizes existing empirical research and literature on RJ interventions for IPV. APA PsychNet, CINAHL, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Embase, Medline PubMed, PsychInfo, PTSD Publications, SCOPUS, Social Services Abstracts, Social Work Reference Center, SocINDEX, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science were systematically searched for English-language publications with no restrictions on the year of publication. As a result, 14 articles and 5 book chapters (empirical studies and reviews) on interventions were included in this review. Synthesized findings highlight the awareness and meaning of RJ, significance of community, goals and outcomes of RJ, timing of program implementation, and what types of IPV cases are best suited for RJ. Additionally, the review describes current research gaps as well as the challenges and barriers of implementing RJ interventions.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to consider what safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime might learn from existing research on restorative justice and to drive practice development based on available evidence.Design/methodology/approachThis paper is based on a scoping review of literature using four academic databases and reference harvesting. This comprised a critical appraisal of 30 articles, which were thematically analysed to appreciate the benefits and challenges of restorative justice responses to hate crime and how this might inform safeguarding responses to discriminatory abuse and hate crime.FindingsThe analysis identifies four domains where learning can be drawn. These relate to theory on restorative justice; restorative justice practices; perspectives from lived experience of restorative justice and hate crime; and an appraisal of critiques about restorative justice.Originality/valueThis paper connects the emerging evidence on restorative criminal justice responses to hate crime to the “turn” towards strengths-based practices in adult safeguarding. Although this provides a fertile environment for embedding restorative practices, the authors argue certain precautions are required based on evidence from existing research on hate crime and restorative justice.

Evidence-based justice

Islamophobic hate crime continues to be a significant social problem throughout the United Kingdom. It is now well established that hate crimes can cause heightened levels of anger, fear and anxiety amongst those who are directly targeted. However, it has largely been assumed that such incidents have negative emotional and social impacts on other members of the victim’s community. Using a large scale survey, this chapter will provide the first quantitative examination of the indirect (community) impacts of hate crimes on members of UK Muslim communities. The study found that simply knowing a victim of an Islamophobic hate crime can have emotional and behavioural effects that are comparable with those who have experienced direct forms of victimisation. This indirect experience was found to increase other group members’ perceptions of threat and their feelings of anger and anxiety. In addition, they were more likely to report avoidant and security-related behavioural intentions and hold negative attitudes towards the Government and certain criminal justice agencies. However, not all impacts were intrinsically negative to community wellbeing. Indirect victimisation was also found to have a mobilising effect on Muslim communities, with many individuals likely to experience enhanced ties to their community and a strengthening of their Muslim identity.

IntroductionParticipation in restorative justice interventions post-sentence has been shown to reduce reoffending and mitigate harm to victims. Investment in, and access to, restorative justice remains limited in England and Wales. An economic model was developed to synthesize the available evidence in order to develop contemporary and robust estimates of the economic impact of investment in restorative justice interventions.MethodsThis research focused on direct and indirect restorative justice interventions for victims and offenders post-sentence in England and Wales. Included offences were those with an identifiable victim. A model was developed to estimate the social benefit–cost ratio of restorative justice, as well as the direct financial return to the criminal justice system. The modeled benefits of restorative justice included reductions in reoffending and direct wellbeing benefits for victims. It was not possible to incorporate direct wellbeing benefits for offenders due to evidence gaps.ResultsIn the model, 8% of referrals to restorative justice resulted in direct restorative justice interventions and 19% resulted in indirect Restorative justice interventions. The modeled cost of the restorative justice pathway per direct intervention was £3,394. The base case estimate for the social benefit–cost ratio of restorative justice was £14 per £1 invested, with a direct return to the criminal justice system of £4 as a result of substantial reductions in reoffending. Scenario analysis suggested a plausible range of £7 to £20 social benefit per £1 invested. Hypothetically, increasing the proportion of eligible cases referred for a restorative justice intervention from 15 to 40% could be associated with an increase in investment of £5 m, and benefits to the criminal justice system totaling £22 m, implying a net saving of £17 m.ConclusionThe research suggests that Restorative justice has the potential to yield a substantial social return on investment (SROI) and direct return on investment to the criminal justice system. The economic case for investment in restorative justice centers on identifying offenders with a high risk of offending and enabling them to participate in an intervention that has been repeatedly demonstrated to help them to change their behavior.

Background: #MeToo movement raised the profiles of restorative justice (RJ) and transformative justice (TJ) in the United States (US) as approaches to repairing harm resulting from sexual violence that center survivors’ needs and emphasize meaningful accountability for persons responsible for harm. This focus on RJ and TJ as viable approaches to sexual violence represents a departure from carceral interventions, which has dominated the US public discourse for decades. Given the shift, mapping the current state of knowledge is critical for practice, policy and research. This scoping review aims to map the available literature to provide an overview of RJ and TJ as responses to sexual violence.
 Methods/Design: The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Joana Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews (Peters, Godfrey-Smith, & Mcinerney, 2017). The concept of interest is the use of RJ and TJ as responses to sexual violence. This scoping review will include both peer-reviewed and grey literature. We will employ a standardized extraction form and represent the data using a descriptive summary, charts and tables that align with the stated objectives.
 Discussion: Since the #MeToo movement emerged in 2017, public interest in RJ and TJ as meaningful responses to sexual violence has grown. This comprehensive scoping review will systematically organize the literature in order to understand the current landscape of evidence related to these approaches. Given the transformative potential of these interventions, past controversies, and current public interest in the approaches, understanding the current state of knowledge is critical for practice, policy and research.

Hate crime and hate speech are extreme examples of negative intergroup relations. It is thought that it would be very useful to analyze the variables that lead up to for dealing with hate speech and crimes that have many physical and psychological destructive consequences for the exposed group members. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to address some of the social psychological variables associated with hate speech and hate crimes and to suggest solutions to reduce hate speech and hate crimes in this context. For this purpose, first of all, hate speech and hate crimes were defined and various examples were presented in this direction. Later, hate crimes and hate speech were examined in terms of social identity identification, social dominance orientation, system justification, realistic and symbolic threat perception, frustration and scapegoat concepts. The relationship between hate speech and crimes of this concept has been embodied with research findings and examples from various regions in Turkey and the world. Finally, some solution suggestions have been presented by making use of this theoretical knowledge in terms of combating hate crimes and hate speeches. Keywords: Hate crime, hate speech, intergroup relations, social psychology

This research assesses the use of diversion and restorative justice (RJ) referrals by patrol officers and Crown prosecutors in a high-crime urban community. Of interest was the influence on referral of legal factors such as prior criminal history and offence severity and the potential impact of extra-legal factors such as age, gender, and Indigenous ethnicity. Data on 1,000 eligible offenders during a 6-month study period were analyzed. About 15% of eligible cases were referred. Police and Crown were not as aggressive as desirable, with the police passing on some eligible low-severity cases later referred by prosecutors. As prior criminal history increased referrals declined, with a more pronounced impact at the patrol officer level. In bivariate analysis, age, gender, and marital, student, and unemployment status exerted small effects, but these were non-significant in multivariate analysis. No evidence of ethnic disparity was found. Crime types of less serious violence and lower property, as well as prior convictions, had moderate bivariate effects, and these persisted in multivariate analysis. Although most cases referred had a limited criminal history and involved minor crimes, police and prosecutors did refer a few involving serious violent offences and prior convictions, showing potential for greater use of RJ.

In essence, everyone who commits a crime will face legal consequences, even minors. Although restorative justice policies and procedures for juvenile offenders have been developed, they have not yet been fully put into practice. The truth is that not all police detectives at the regional sector level comprehend how to use restorative justice to resolve juvenile criminal cases. The purpose of this study is to comprehend and evaluate the paradigm of restorative justice for juvenile offenders from a utility theory standpoint. The difficulties in applying restorative justice to juvenile offenders at the police level are also examined in this study. This study is a normative, legal, descriptive, and analytical study. Secondary data were used in this study, and they were gathered by employing library research techniques. A qualitative method is used in data analysis. The study's findings demonstrate that applying restorative justice to kids who break the law is essentially protecting kids from the law itself, with the goal that kids will still be protected even when mistakes are made. The use of restorative justice is a type of legal benefit from the standpoint of legal advantages. The community benefits from the law that has been created by the government, including both those who are criminals and those who are among their victims. In other words, the law is not only created to punish, but also to protect, advance the law, and benefit society. Second, that barriers to the use of restorative justice can be divided into two categories: internal barriers arising from the juvenile offenders and external barriers in the form of community environmental barriers, family barriers, juvenile officer barriers, and juvenile mediator barriers.

Background: In recent years, the use of restorative justice (RJ) and restorative practices (RP) in schools has grown rapidly. Understanding how theory and research address this topic is important for its practical implementation based on scientific knowledge. The aim of this article was to analyse the practices derived from RJ implemented in school and what kinds of results have been achieved. Starting from the analysis of the qualitative and quantitative research in the field, a systematic review was conducted on the last decade of studies using RJ and RP at every level of school education. Methods: For this review, methods including the PRISMA guidelines, the PRISMA flow diagram, and qualitative synthesis were carried out. Scientific articles for the literature review were selected according to the following criteria: (1) publication date between the years 2010–2021; (2) student population aged 6–18 years; (3) publications in the English language; (4) articles directly accessible or accessible by contacting the author(s); 34 articles met the inclusion criteria. Results: The most used RP in school are circles (n = 26), followed by restorative conferences (n = 17), peer mediation (n = 10), restorative conversations (n = 8), mediation (n = 7), community-building circles (n = 5). RP can improve the school climate, discipline, positive conflict management through actions that aim at preventing suspensions, exclusions, conflicts, and misbehaviours (e.g., bullying). RJ practices promote positive relationships between peers and between students and teachers, as well as to prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills. Conclusions: From the studies examined, a great interest in applying restorative justice and practices in schools clearly emerged. Discussions on the benefits and challenges of implementation were provided. However, there is still limited evidence in terms of direct correlation, which suggests further studies on the impact of RJ and RP in school settings.

Previous research has demonstrated beneficial outcomes of using restorative justice techniques, rather than traditional punitive approaches, in response to student misbehavior. As with the use of restorative justice in criminal justice contexts, restorative discipline shifts the focus from punishment and isolation to reconciliation and reintegration. Although the use of restorative justice techniques has decreased student delinquency, resulted in better academic outcomes, and improved school climate, many schools today continue to implement punitive practices to control student behavior. The current research uses data from a nationally representative sample of schools to examine school conditions that influence the use of restorative responses to violence and misbehavior. Identifying the characteristics of a school that affect the likelihood that specific restorative justice techniques will be implemented can reveal opportunities for diminishing disparities, improving outcomes for students, and reducing the odds that students will subsequently become involved in the juvenile justice system.

The Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is a democratic legal state based on Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution. Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 concerning the Use of Restorative Justice in the Process of Criminal Offenses is a regulation that regulates the use of restorative justice. This study will discuss the following topics: the impact of handling criminal prosecutions through restorative justice in accordance with the Republic of Indonesia State Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021; challenges and initiatives associated with this approach; and the impact of handling criminal prosecutions in accordance with the provisions mentioned above. The use of restorative justice in stalking cases can be applied to mild, moderate and severe stalking situations if there is peace between the parties mediated by police mediators and community leaders, according to the results of studies and discussions. Investigators face several challenges, including: the reporter's demands are higher than the applicant's capabilities; the perpetrator is a recidivist who has a previous criminal history; the perpetrator and victim are less cooperative; consideration of victims is not carried out transparently; and previously there had been a conflict between the perpetrator and the victim

This chapter challenges current thinking on addressing hate crime by arguing in favor of laws that create specific hate crime offenses but that do not automatically impose enhanced penalties on offenders. It is argued that the current theorization on hate crime law fails to adequately consider the potentially corrosive and counterproductive impacts that enhanced punishments have on the cohesiveness of society. The chapter offers an alternative approach to addressing hate crime that synthesizes criminal law, threatened punitive sanctions, and restorative and community-based justice interventions. It is argued that if the criminal justice system is to more effectively address the causes and consequences of hate crime, criminal laws should be supported systematically by interventions that seek to engage the stakeholders of such crimes via dialogical processes that focus on harm reparation. Only where these and other measures fail to resolve inter-personal conflicts should the state resort to imposing punishments.

The purpose of this article is to consider the possibilities and the legitimacy of using various forms of restorative justice in hate crime cases. Advantages of restorative justice programs as ways of responding hate crimes were especially explored and difficulties in implementing them for this category of acts were outlined. The conclusions drawn from the analysis might contribute to increased interest in the issue of combating hate crimes.

Hate crimes send messages of intolerance that can cause significant emotional and behavioral harm to entire identity groups. Previous research, based on intergroup emotions theory, has helped explain the psychological mechanisms that underpin the indirect effects of anti-LGBT+ hate crime, showing that incidents give rise to perceptions of threat among community members, which in turn elicit certain emotional reactions that trigger specific behavioral outcomes. This article provides two significant contributions to this developing knowledgebase. First, it provides an important replication of the theoretical model with another frequently targeted community: Muslim people. In addition, it offers the first quantitative analysis of how combinations of different emotions trigger discrete behavioral responses in the aftermath of hate crime, thereby providing much-needed nuance to the intergroup emotions theory model. Across two studies (Study 1: N = 589 LGBT+ participants; Study 2: N = 347 Muslim participants), we show that, for both LGBT+ and Muslim participants, indirect experiences of hate crimes are associated with greater perceptions of threat, which are then positively associated with anger, anxiety, and shame, that link to behavioral intentions: avoidance, pro-action, security behaviors, and retaliation. Latent class analyses further revealed that participants' emotional reactions tend to cluster into four distinct profiles in both communities: people scored mid-range on all emotions, or high anger with low shame, or high anger with high anxiety, or low shame. These combinations had direct implications for intended behaviors across both groups: experiencing high anger with high anxiety was a cogent motivator of action. Most significantly, we provide new insights into how and why different emotions interact to predict both similar and divergent behaviors in the aftermath of hate crime incidents. Our findings yield important new knowledge that holds the potential of shaping both public policies and practices aimed at addressing the impacts of hate crimes.