Nathan Monk

This paper is an examination of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) and the related conditions of fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), fetal alcohol effects (FAE), and alcoholrelated birth effects (ARBE)3 as they pertain to the Canadian criminal justice system, and specifically to Aboriginal Canadian offenders. FASD is considered a problem for the criminal justice system in general, but the over-representation of Aboriginal persons at various levels of the Canadian system, in particular in the Prairie Provinces of Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) places an additional factor into any consideration of the issue. This is further complicated by the fact that, as suggested by Tait (2003), it is important to recognize the ‘secondary disabilities’ identified as part of FASD in the context of those social characteristics that are the result of colonialism and related policies of discrimination, attempts at forced assimilation and economic marginalization experienced by Aboriginal people. Thus the high incarceration rate of Aboriginal people which many see as an outcome of colonialism, combined with common stereotypes of the “drunken Indian” may lead one to assume that FASD is a major contributing factor to Aboriginal peoples’ over-involvement with the criminal justice system. What is really the issue at hand is the relationship between FASD and incarceration of  Aboriginal people, not as an indicator of the connection between alcoholism addiction and Aboriginals, but rather as a sign that incarceration of Aboriginal people is connected to discrimination, and broader health and social development issues (the outcome of colonialism) and which may also include FASD. The problems of identifying offenders with FASD in the criminal justice system (and in particular the prison system), presents as disproportionately problem of Aboriginal people. This must be taken into account when developing policies and practices around FASD and criminal justice.

Government responses to ‘anti-social behaviour’ have included, amongst others, two
trends that employ shame in pursuit of crime prevention: “naming and shaming” of those
subject to anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) on one hand and restorative justice on
the other. This article considers how the Government has made use of each, the
dynamics of each shaming process, and the compatibility of these approaches. It argues
that they are mutually exclusive, and that restorative justice should be preferred as a
potentially more constructive shaming process.

The aim of this contribution is to deal with the purposes, benefits and caveats of comparative studies in the field of restorative justice. This consideration is of first importance since more and more international conferences, seminars or ‘fora’ are dealing with the issue of comparison2. The paper will examine the structural conditions for the increasing interest in comparative approach, especially in Europe; highlight the relevance of undertaking comparative studies in the field of restorative justice; point to the main difficulties in developing comparative evaluative research; present two important methodological positions in developing comparisons between different countries’ development; and the conclusion will elaborate upon potential and caveats of both methods and suggest a framework of implementation for comparative studies in the field of restorative justice.

This article aims to provide a general overview of victim-offender mediation with young offenders in Europe by focusing on organizational and practical features in the following nations: Austria, Belgium, England and Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the Netherlands. This overview may be useful as European Union (EU) member States are not only requested by the Council of Europe to promote victim-offender mediation (Recommendation No. R(99)19), but were specifically urged by the EU Council to amend their legislation for this purpose by March 2006 (Framework Decision of March 15, 2001, arts. 10, 17).

Comparative information presented here deals with: concepts and regulations; the relationship between victim-offender mediation and the prosecution/court system; the organization of mediation services (including: distribution of the operative units, their funding and professional characteristics of mediators, contexts in which victim-offender mediation is applied), victim-offender mediation practices and coordination of mediation activities.

The article describes the federal statistics on Victim-Offender-Mediation (VOM) cases in Germany. The statistics exist from 1993 and contain information on more than 30,000 VOM-cases, victims and offenders. The article describes the history of the statistics, philosophy, aims, and methodology with detailed information about the kind of information collected. The structure of the data and the technical realization of data collection and analysis procedures are also discussed. Additional paragraphs introduce the reader to the relationships between the organisers of the statistics and the practitioners, the dissemination of the results, and the costs of the statistics. Finally the relevance for developments at a European level is considered.

Although restorative justice is often presented as a victim-oriented reform of criminal justice procedures, there is a relative dearth of research and theory into the experiences of victims within restorative justice. Recently Heather Strang, Lawrence Sherman and their associates (2003, 2004, 2006) started to develop theory and research that attempts to fill this relative void. This article is an attempt to contribute to the further understanding of the effects of restorative justice conferencing on victims. Taking Strang and Sherman’s work as a starting point, it discusses various issues relating to research and theory of victims within restorative justice.

First of all there is the need to pay more attention to victim variety within research into restorative justice. Needs, opinions and traits of victims differ from one victim to the next and one situation to the next. Generalized needs therefore must be qualified. Secondly the comparison between criminal justice and restorative justice is complicated. The independent effect of the criminal justice system on victims makes it difficult to use it as the control group for restorative justice conferences. In addition it is difficult to discern the working element of restorative justice conferences: why do restorative justice  conferences outperform criminal justice procedures?

Emotional restoration finally is maybe the most important issue concerning victims in restorative justice. Using two central victim reactions to crime, anxiety and anger and drawing on psychological theory and practice concerning victims outside of the criminal justice system, the article develops a theoretical base for understanding victims emotional reactions within restorative justice.

This paper presents a reflection on the reasons which motivate the evaluation of restorative justice practices. In a social and institutional domain crowded with believes and symbols it debates what this need for understanding means. With the help of simple questions: who evaluates, for what reasons, what is evaluated and how, it proposes to researchers a small exercise in scientific hygiene useful both for improving their necessary distance and for understanding better the difficulties of evaluative reasoning within the field of restorative justice.

This article describes the various restorative justice practices in Norway in which we have played significant roles, and then proposes a model for evaluation based upon these. In so doing it makes a case both for restorative justice and for evaluation as critical for assessing the value of restorative justice and for learning and improvement. The paper concludes with a short analysis of an example of evaluatory research applied to a particular restorative justice project.