Mitigating risk in restorative justice
äºThe International Journal of Restorative JusticeSearch for other papers by Joanna Shapland in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Jamie Buchan in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Steve Kirkwood in
Current site
Google Scholar
Search for other papers by Estelle Zinsstag in
Current site
Google Scholar
Assessing and mitigating risks is essential for safe restorative justice practice, and yet very little has been written on this topic. In this study, we addressed this issue by interviewing 30 experienced restorative justice practitioners from eleven jurisdictions across Europe to explore how they assessed and mitigated risks. Our findings show that assessment and mitigation practices focused on risks relating to the restorative justice process proceeding safely, especially in relation to any feelings of safety for the potential participants, rather than, for example, risks of re-offending. Although practitioners reported some cases being âtoo riskyâ for restorative justice, this was rare, and was usually due to the requirements for restorative justice being violated, such as the offender denying responsibility, the presence of threats or coercion, or mental ill health or substance abuse that prevented communication, rather than the type or severity of the offence. Rather than the standardised or actuarial risk assessment tools used in other criminal justice contexts, risk assessment and mitigation in restorative justice practice is being done through processes based on restorative justice practices and principles; that is, through discussion, negotiation, and mutual agreement.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 372 | 325 | 13 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 15 | 14 | 2 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 30 | 30 | 2 |
Mitigating risk in restorative justice
äºThe International Journal of Restorative JusticeSearch for other papers by Joanna Shapland in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Jamie Buchan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Steve Kirkwood in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by Estelle Zinsstag in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Assessing and mitigating risks is essential for safe restorative justice practice, and yet very little has been written on this topic. In this study, we addressed this issue by interviewing 30 experienced restorative justice practitioners from eleven jurisdictions across Europe to explore how they assessed and mitigated risks. Our findings show that assessment and mitigation practices focused on risks relating to the restorative justice process proceeding safely, especially in relation to any feelings of safety for the potential participants, rather than, for example, risks of re-offending. Although practitioners reported some cases being âtoo riskyâ for restorative justice, this was rare, and was usually due to the requirements for restorative justice being violated, such as the offender denying responsibility, the presence of threats or coercion, or mental ill health or substance abuse that prevented communication, rather than the type or severity of the offence. Rather than the standardised or actuarial risk assessment tools used in other criminal justice contexts, risk assessment and mitigation in restorative justice practice is being done through processes based on restorative justice practices and principles; that is, through discussion, negotiation, and mutual agreement.
| å ¨é¨æé´ | è¿å»ä¸å¹´ | è¿å»30天 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| æè¦æµè§æ¬¡æ° | 372 | 325 | 13 |
| å ¨ææµè§æ¬¡æ° | 15 | 14 | 2 |
| PDFä¸è½½æ¬¡æ° | 30 | 30 | 2 |
