News

When people are asked what values should drive sentencing, those that rank highly are apologising and paying back. Yet the day-to-day work of cops, courts and corrections all too often loses sight of what should be the guiding principles for responding to crime.

This could all change if the government's strategy for restorative justice, published for consultation last week, is turned into action. The strategy aims to maximise the use of restorative justice by building on initiatives in youth justice that bring victims and offenders together, and by expanding their use as an alternative to prosecution and sentencing options for adults.


In Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, victim offender mediation, restorative conferencing or family group conferencing play a much more central role in decision-making for juveniles and adults than they do here. A growing body of evidence shows that these approaches can meet victims' needs more effectively than conventional criminal justice and reduce reoffending, particularly in serious and violent cases. So what is needed for restorative justice to move from the margins to the mainstream in England and Wales?

First, we need to find ways to involve more victims than is now the case. Victims participate directly in fewer than one in six youth offender panels and diversion conferences for juveniles - in Australia the rate is 70 per cent. While there is scope for indirect involvement - by letter, or proxy - much of the impact of restorative justice flows from the face-to-face contact and expression of feelings about the crime. Developing a model victims want to take part in must be a priority.


Second, we need to decide who should run restorative justice schemes and build the necessary capacity. The police have played a key role in developments so far in the UK, but there are concerns about value and whether they are properly independent.

Finally, we must be clear about the extent to which restorative justice meetings decide what happens to offenders or merely make recommendations for the courts to consider. It is important to decide the extent to which an offender's fate should hang on the victim's willingness to forgive them - an agreement between an offender and victim will not always satisfy all that the public interest demands. After all, what defines a crime is that someone has done wrong as well as harm.

Rob Allen is director of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, a strategic initiative of the Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, an independent grant-making body.